BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 05^TH DAY OF JULY 2022

ORDER

SRI.H.JANARDHAN, MEMBER

1. This complainant has been filed by the complainant under section 35 of C.P.Act 2019 and prays this Hon’ble Commission to grant the following reliefs.

1. To direct the OP to refund the full subscription amount of Rs.1,18,000/- immediately along with interest at 18% P.A. interest.

b) To direct the respondent to pay the cost of litigation and other expenses for the sum of Rs.25,000/- only.

c) To direct the respondent to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the loss of LIC agency, mental torture and harassment and any other reliefs.

2.The brief case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant is the LIC advisor and approached the OP to provide leads by furnishing details of prospective customers for insurance business and requested the OP to provide the same. The complainant visited the office of OP, had discussion with marketing  personnel  and after assurance the  OP also promised the complainant that they will furnish the quality Gold and Diamond Lead for insurance business and finally the complainant being convinced make up his mind  for subscription of Premium Access Plan by   deposit of Rs.1,18,000/-. The complainant after believing the assurance and promises made payment of subscription. The respondent provided with low quality Gold and Diamond leads. And the appointment which was fixed by OP, the complainant called the customers to leads of the customers provided by the OP stating that they were not interested and promise made by OP went in vain. Though, the complainant made  several calls to the non-existing leads and run around for many days to find address which were non existing.  When the complainant contacted the customers they informed that they were not interested in making insurance policy. Hence, the complainant  alleges that service to the complainant in providing low quality leads amounts to deficiency of service. Hence, filed this  present complaint.  Later on the complainant filed application for amendment and amendment was carried out.

3. In response to notice, the OP appeared through counsel and filed version. The OP contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in  law  or   on facts and same is liable to be dismissed. OP admits that the complainant paid amount of Rs.1,18,000/- to the OP, but the OP submits that the complainant  contacted the OP to provide leads who interested in buying insurance policy in their Website i.e. Lead Market online application. The subscriber/associate shall deposit prescribed sum amount in his wallet of the lead market on particular leads and same  shall be used to buy lead. By depositing the said wallet the subscriber shall agree to the terms and conditions mentioned in the lead market application. As per conditions of point-6 of the terms and conditions there is no provision for refund and also OP contended that  charge back and refund  policy is also not applicable when once the complainant have agreed terms and conditions of the agreement  and contended that when the terms and conditions are agreed then the policy  contract cannot be reverted back.

Further, the complainant  prescribed the service of leads market online application and deposited amount in a wallet  agreed both terms and conditions  and paid total 94 leads from lead market platform, out of which complainant claimed the replacement of 63  leads. Out of 63 leads OP replaced 54 leads  and credited points were added back to complainant  wallet  successfully. However, the OP contended that leads market has self service  mobile application. Here OP uploads leads and associates shall buy the same based on quality of particular lead, which suits for their requirement and conversion capacity. Hence, there is no question of delivery of leads arises. But, OP only provide leads but no conversion guarantee, but OP contends that at the exceptional cases leads can be replaced by means of eligibility criteria mentioned in the replacement policy. And also contends that lead count cannot be refunded under any circumstances and same shall be used only to buy leads to lead market and there is not validity  for the same and further more the OP contended that the complainant filed this complaint suppressing material facts and they failed  and neglected to covert the leads in his favour and alleges against OP for deficiency, but the complainant while generating leads the OP paid huge money to pay the salaries for employees, pay building rent, pay software and hardware,  cost and electricity internet etc., but complainant has failed to lead which cost at more for generating the same and now the claim for refund from the OP which is illegally morally cannot be accepted. Further OP contends that all other allegations made in the complaint is denied and  is put to strict proof of the same and prays this commission to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

4. The  Complainant and OP have filed their affidavit evidence and complainant relies on 11 documents  and OP not filed any document.  Both filed written arguments.

5. Heard. Perused records.

6. The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
3. What order?

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:- Affirmative.

      Point No.2:- Affirmative in part.   

      Point No.3:-As per the final order.

REASONS

8.  Point Nos.1: It is admitted by both parties that the complainant has approached the OP for providing leads and to furnish details of prospective customers for insurance business. As the complainant was LIC agent, it would help him to improve his business and also it is admitted by the OP, the complainant paid Rs.1,18,000/- to the OP for providing leads and complainant adopted for Premium Access Plan. The OP assured the complainant that they  are going to provide Gold and Diamond  leads and by providing such service the OP has shown interest  that the complainant would become a MDRT and subsequently get into Chairmen’s club member of LIC. Wherein all the leads which were provided by the  OP and the appointment would be fixed for the complainant by the OP and after completing the OP would provide Gold and Diamond leads. Further the leads provided by the OP was not upto the mark and leads provided by OP was un-existing quality, fraudulent leads and further the complainant alleges that the leads which were provided  when he contacted  over phone and personally and the leads were unexisting leads. As such the complainant was made to run around for many days to find out address of the said leads. When the complainant contacted, the leads provided by the OP  and they informed the complainant that they are not interested to do insurance policy. When such being the case the complainant  alleges there is deficiency of service on the part of OP while providing fraudulent leads. Further more, the OP alleges that they have provided leads to the complainant, the complainant inturn have replaced 54 leads out of 63 leads and deducted  credit points  were added back to his wallet successfully, but OP has not produced any evidence to show that the said credit points were added back to his  wallet. Further more the OP has taken contention that the complainant has signed terms and conditions of the policy documents and OP submit that they cannot go back out of the terms and conditions of policy documents and the terms and conditions is subject matter and parties to the contract cannot add, delete or substitute  the terms and conditions of the contract. But the terms and conditions provided by the  OP is unilateral one and persons to  the contract cannot go through the same at the time of entering into contract which are not visible to open eyes at the time of contract. As such it can be deemed as unilateral contract and judgments provided by the complainant  1996(SC)C-1-89 M/s Fair Air Engineers V/s N.K.Modi, FIIT JEE Ltd. V/s Minathi Rath, D.N.Kochar V/s FIIT JEE Ltd. The citations provided by the complainant is not applicable, but the contents of judgments can be taken into consideration. Where in  stated that on unfair or an unreasonable contract entered into between parties of unequal bargaining power was void as unconscionable U/s 23 of Indian Contract Act and the courts would relieve the weaker party to a contract from unconscionable, oppressive, unfair, unjust and unconstitutional obligations  in a standard form of contract. When such being the case, the OP has not produced any cogent evidence to prove that the OP provided suitable leads and the complainant had reverted 54 leads out of 63 leads. No documentary proof has been provided by the OP to show that service provided by the OP was substantial. When such being the case, it can be clearly held that there is deficiency of service on the part of OP. When the terms and conditions  of the agreement  is provided by the OP is not signed by the OP, it can not be concluded as agreement. Hence, it is deemed as unilateral contract. Hence, we deem it that the complainant proved this case. The complainant has proved deficiency of service on the part of OP. Accordingly, we answer the point No.1 in affirmative.

9. Point No.2: When the complainant  had availed the service of OP for providing suitable leads, but when the OP has failed to provide suitable leads and service provided by OP was not suited to the complainant and OP utterly failed to provide proper service to the complainant  in providing suitable leads. Hence, we deem that OP has failed to provide service to the complainant and hence, we deem that compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant will meet ends of justice. Hence, we answer Point No.2 in affirmative in part.  

10.  Point no.3:- Further the complainant has sought for directing the OP to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The complainant has not placed  any evidence to show that above loss has been occurred  to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is not placed for the said reliefs. In view of the discussions made above and findings given on point Nos.1 and 2, we proceed to pass the following

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. Complainant is entitled for compensation of Rs.30,000/-  for not providing proper service by the OP and Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation.
3. The OP shall comply this order within 45 days from the date of this order.
4. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 5^th  day of July, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 : Nil