R.Vijayakumar, Member

The complaint is filed seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum, compensation Rs.20,000/- and cost Rs.1000/-.

(2)

The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows.

                       The complainant, who is working as an Adv.Clerk, believing the representation of second opposite party that the complainant will get a good return, if a policy, holding single premium is taken and that the complainant need only to make a single payment of Rs.1,50,000/- as Premium, had taken a policy from opposite parties. The second opposite party had collected the relevant details of the complainant and has also obtained the signature of the complainant in some blank forms. It was represented by the second opposite party that he will fill up the forms later with relevant details. The complainant had also handed over a cheque bearing no.252803 dated:30/11/07 of Quilon Urban Co-Operative Bank for Rs.1,50,000/- towards single premium of the policy. The second opposite party informed that the complainant will get insurance policy document from the first opposite party directly by registered post. But the complainant did not get the insurance policy even after the lapse of a long period. It was informed by the second opposite party on enquiry of the complainant that it will take more time to get the policy document. On 22/12/08 the complainant had received a letter dated: 15/12/08 from the first opposite party mentioning the policy number as 11196126 and calling upon the complainant for payment of premium for the subsequent year. On enquiry, second opposite party had disclosed that he had filled up the form for a policy with automatic reinvestment plan with an yearly premium of Rs.1,50,000/- for a continuous period of 6 years stating that the complainant is doing Jewellery business and he has to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- each per year for 6 years, continuously and that if  he fails to do so he will loose the entire amount he had deposited . This was totally against the previous representation of II opposite party. The opposite parties collided together and collected the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with an intention to get more amount as commission. They had not delivered the policy document to the complainant with an ulterior motive to

(3)

suppress the fraud exercised by them. The second opposite party had acted upon dishonest interest to cheat the complainant, to make unlawful financial gain and to make unlawful loss to the complainant. The complainant sent a letter dated : 22/05/09 to the first opposite party requesting them to at least convert the alleged policy to a single investment plan. This request also was refused. They have also raised a false plea that the policy document with a photocopy of application form was dispatched to the complainant on 10/02/07. The fraudulent act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and it caused much pain and mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant approached the Forum for getting relief.

          Even though sufficient opportunity has been given the first opposite party remained absent and hence set exparte.

The second opposite party filed version contenting the allegations raised by the complainant.

As stated in the complaint the opposite party collected the relevant details of the complainant obtained his signature in the blank application form, received the cheque for Rs.1,50,000/- and has handed over the same to the main authorized agent Mr.Shailajan. The second opposite party has no role other than collecting relevant datas, obtaining signature in blank application form collection of cheque and entrusting it to the main authorized agent. The second opposite party is only a facilitator in providing insurance policy. Filling up of the application form sending the cheque / cash etc are being directly done from the first opposite party and the matter filled in the form regarding the term and nature of investment are done by the concerned personals of the first opposite party or by the main authorized agent. The second opposite party had not derived any unlawful gain or made unlawful loss to the complainant. Non-delivery of insurance policy is not within the control of second opposite party. It

(4)

is admitted that the complainant approached the second opposite party with request to return the amount. But the second opposite party is not liable to return the said amount as the same had already sent to the first opposite party.

The customer is having an option to cancel the policy within a reasonable time as per the insurance policy, if any mistake happened in filling up information in the application regarding address, terms, name of nominee etc or anything against the instruction of the customer. The contract of insurance is in between the complainant and the first opposite party and so the grievances regarding term of policy, non receipt of the policy document etc are to be agitated in between them only.

The second opposite party is no way liable to return the amount with interest. The second opposite party is not aware of the letter sent by the first opposite party for the payment of subsequent year’s premium. There is no deficiency in service from the part of second opposite party. Hence second opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

The complainant filed affidavit. PW1 was examined. Exts.P1 to P3 marked. The second opposite party has no oral or documentary evidence.

Heard both sides.

The points that would arise for consideration are :

1.                              Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party?

2.                              Compensation and cost.

(5)

Points (1) and (2)

                  Admittedly the second opposite party is an agent of first opposite party and had collected the policy amount Rs.1,50,000/- signed blank forms  relevant details of the complainant and handed over the same to the main authorized agent, Mr. Shilajan. It is also stated that filling up of the application form, sending the cheque / cash etc are being directly done by the first opposite party or by the office of the authorized main agent.

                  The complainant would swear before the Forum in tune with the allegations in the complaint. Nothing was brought out in cross-exam to discard the witness.

                  The main contention raised by the second opposite party is that he has only the role of facilitator. Non – delivery of policy is not within the control of the second opposite party.

                  As an agent who has persuaded the complainant to take the said policy, explained the benefits of policy and directly collected an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the complainant the second opposite party cannot evade from his bounden duties. He had admitted in his version that the complainant had made enquiries with him about the non-issuance of policy. But he had not taken any steps to verify and rectify the fault.

                  It is admitted that opposite party had filled up the printed forms and the instructions of the complaint were totally violated by the opposite parties. It

(6)

is also clear from the statements in the version itself that the amount was invested in an Insurance policy having six yearly premium of Rs.1,50,000/-.

                  It is stated by the complainant that only after receiving the letter on 22/12/08 that the complainant could know that the amount was invested in an insurance policy having yearly premium for 6 years. The policy document was not sent to the complainant. The opposite parties had not produced any document to show that they had sent the original policy to the complainant. It is obvious that the policy was not issued to the complainant.

                  It is stated in Ext.P3, the reply sent by the first opposite party that the policy in favour of the complainant along with photocopy of the application form was dispatched to the complainant on December 10, 2007.

                  It is further stated that any change in policy can be made only during the free look period within 15 days of receipt of policy document. Here in this case, the policy was not issued by the opposite party. The complainant had lost his chance to cancel or change the policy due to the non-issuance of the policy document. On a careful consideration of the entire evidence before us, we find that there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties. The points found accordingly. The opposite parties are liable to return the policy amount and the complainant is entitled to get the same.

                  In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum  from 30.11.2007 till the date of payment. The opposite parties are further directed to pay compensation Rs.10000/- and cost Rs.1000/- to the complainant

(7)

The order is to be complied with within one month of the date of receipt of the order.

Dated this the 15th day of February 2012

G.Vasanthakumari         :Sd/-

Adv.Ravi Susha              :Sd/-

R.Vijayakumar               :Sd/-

INDEX

List of witness for the complainant

PW1                      - Pratheesh

List of documents for the complainant

P1                         - Letter dated: 15/12/2008

P2                         - Notice issued by complainant to first opposite party

P3                         - Reply Notice sent by first opposite party