Andhra Pradesh

East Godwari-II at Rajahmundry

CC/3/2016

Akella Naga Sodemma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Shriram Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Rep. by its General Manager - Opp.Party(s)

D.V.K.Ramesh

15 Nov 2016

ORDER

                                                                                                                                             Date of filing:   07.01.2016

                                                                                                                                             Date of Order: 15.11.2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT AT RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM

 

                                                            PRESENT:   Smt H.V. Ramana, B.Com., L.L.M.,   PRESIDENT(FAC)

                      Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, M.Com., B.L., MEMBER          

    

                 Tuesday, the 15^th day of November, 2016

 

 

C.C.No.3 /2016

Between:-

 

Akella Naga Sodemma, W/o.Subba Rao, Hindu,

Aged 76 years, D.No.7-76, Pulletikurru Vyagreswaram,

Ambajipeta Mandal.                                                                                                                         …        Complainant

 

                                    And

 

1)  M/s. Shriram Life Insurance Co., Ltd.,

      Rep. by its General Manager, Regd. Office,

      D.No.3-6-478, 3^rd Floor, Anand Estate,

      Opp: Indian Bank, Himayath Nagar,

      Hyderabad – 500 029, Telangana State.

 

2)  M/s. Shriram Life Insurance Co., Ltd.,

      Rep. by its Branch Manager, Amalapuram.

 

3)  Y.R.V. Mahesh, Divisional Manager,

      M/s. Shriram Life Insurance Co., Ltd.,

      Markapur, Prakasam Dist.                                                                                                        …        Opposite parties

 

            This case coming on 02.11.2016 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri D.V.K. Ramesh, Advocate for the complainant and Sri K.S. Laxminarayana, Advocate for the opposite party No.1 and the opposite parties 2 & 3 having been set ex-parte, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum has pronounced the following:  

 

O R D E R

[Per Smt.H.V. Ramana, President(FAC)] 

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay the deposited amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 18% p.a. from 11.7.2010 till payment; pay Rs.50,000/- towards compensation and damages and pay Rs.2,000/- towards complaint charges.

2.         The case of the complainant is as follows:- It is submitted that the complainant is a old lady and her hard earnings and savings of Rs.50,000/- wanted to be invest in a good company to get good returns. The then Manager of 2^nd opposite party by name Y.R.V. Mahesh approached the complainant and induced her to deposit the said amount of Rs.50,000/-, so that he would give attractive rate of interest and the complainant gave an amount of Rs.50,000/- to be deposit in the company to the Branch Manager, the same in the name of Krishna Kumari, the person of 15 years which fact the complainant came to know recently. The complainant again paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- to be deposit in the year 2010 and another amount of Rs.50,000/- in the year 2012. Thus, the total amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was deposited by the complainant in the office of the 2^nd opposite party, where the 3^rd opposite party is discharging the office of Branch Manager. The husband of the complainant came to know about the wrongful acts of the 3^rd opposite party in depositing the amount in the name of Krishna Kumari and started demanding the 2^nd opposite party to repay the said deposited amount with interest, for which the 2^nd opposite party postponing the same. A complaint was given to Zonal office, then only the complainant came to know that the address, signature and age of Krishna Kumari are all wrong. Again the said information was corrected and sent the transfer form afresh. Later a cheque was issued for Rs.1,15,643/- bearing No.069079 dt.28.1.2013 of HDFC Bank by the M/s. Shriram Life Insurance Company Ltd. The remaining amount has to be paid to the complainant for which the opposite parties postponing to pay the amount. The complainant got issued notice dt.18.2.2014 through advocate for which there is no reply. Hence, the complaint.

3.         The 1^st opposite party filed its written version and denied all the allegations made by the complainant. This opposite party submits that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is submitted that Mrs. A.N. Sodemma had applied for two insurance policies by submitting a proposal form bearing No.118909000546 & 118909000547 and by paying the proposal deposit amount of Rs.49,900/- each vide Receipt Nos.118920091200080 & 118920091200081 dt.18.12.2009. It is submitted that the proposal were cancelled on 13.1.2010. Hence, the proposal deposit amount received was refunded to the complainant vide DD.Nos.208353 & 208352 dated 1.2.2010 for Rs.49,845/-. It is submitted that one Ms.Krishna Kumari.T had applied for a policy on her life by submitting a proposal form bearing No.118909000357 and paying proposal deposit amount of Rs.50,000/- vide receipt No.118920100800083 dt.31.8.2010. It is submitted that after underwriting the proposal bearing No.118909000357 a policy was issued covering the Life of Ms.Krishna Kumari.T bearing policy No.LN110900098546, under the plan “Shri Plus” which had commenced on 21.8.2009 for a sum assured amount of Rs.3,75,000/- for a term of 15 years with an annual premium amount of Rs.50,000/- payable for a period of 15 years. It is submitted that the policyholder paid two renewal premiums vide Receipt No.118920101000026 dt.8.10.2010 and Receipt No.504220120500108 dt.11.5.2012. It is submitted that the said Ms.Krishna Kumari.T after the issuance of the policy, had given a written requisition seeking Assignment of the policy in favour of her nominee Mrs.A. Sodemma. As per the request the said policy holder Ms.Krishna Kumari.T gifted the policy her grandmother Mrs. A.Sodemma on 18.7.2010 vide absolute assignment by way of gift. It is submitted that the Assignee Mrs.A.Sodemma requested for surrender of the policy bearing No.LN110900098546 by submitting the required documents for the same in Jan, 2013. On the plain viewing of the signatures on these documents when verified with the signature on the complaint before this Hon’ble Forum matches. After processing the surrender request, a surrender amount of Rs.1,15,632/- available under the policy was paid vide Cq.No.069079 dt.29.1.2013 drawn on HDFC Bank, which the complainant had acknowledged. It is pertinent to submit that the policy purchased by the policyholder was a Unit Linked Insurance Policy i.e. investment-cum-insurance policy. Under this kind of policy, after deducting the application charges, some portion of the premium will be utilized for covering the risk of the life assured and remaining balance premium will be invested into the Security Funds as chosen by the policyholder. The below table will give a clear idea regarding the premiums paid and fund value available as on the date of surrendering the policy:-

            1^st year premium paid – Rs.50,000

            Premium allocation charges deducted – Rs.30,000

Funds allocated – Rs.20,000

 

2 renewal premiums paid – Rs.1,00,000

Renewal charges deducted – Rs.5,000

Net allocated funds – Rs.95,000

 

After deducting the relevant premium allocation charges, the remaining amount was invested into the mutual fund named “Maximus”, which is subjected to monthly deduction of units in order to meet the morality charges. Like such, the policyholder has enjoyed the investment benefit as well as insurance coverage for a sum assured amount of Rs.3,75,000/-. In case of any unfortunate event to the Life assured, the company was under obligation to pay the Sum assured + available fund value under the policy. However, in the present case since the policy was surrendered, after deducting the applicable surrender charges the company has paid the available surrender value amount i.e. Rs.1,15,632/- to the complainant. Hence, intentions of the complainant in demanding over and above the amount eligible under the policy is nothing but with a dishonest intention to have undue advantage out of the policy issued by them. It is submitted the cheque number mentioned in the complaint is the cheque given in lieu of the above mentioned surrender of the policy bearing No.LN110900098546 which admits to have received. It is submitted from the above narrated facts and circumstances, the receipt numbers mentioned in the complaint is paid accordingly. Hence, there is no payments/ liability due in lieu of the receipts mentioned in the complaint by the opposite party. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4.         The proof affidavit filed by the complainant and Exs.A1 to A5 have been marked for the complainant. The proof affidavit filed by the 1^st opposite party and Exs.B1 to B12 have been marked on behalf of the 1^st opposite party.

5.         Heard the 1^st opposite party. Written arguments filed on behalf of the 1st opposite party. Complainant’s counsel failed to give his side of arguments even inspite of several adjournments. Therefore, the matter is posted for orders by this Forum.

6.         Points raised for consideration are:

 

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

            2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?

            3. To what relief?

 

7.  POINT Nos.1 & 2:  The admitted facts of the complaint are that the complainant is 76 years old woman and a senior citizen filed this case before this Forum. The complainant submitted that the Manager of the 2^nd opposite party by name Y.R.V. Mahesh approached her and made her deposit Rs.50,000/-, so that she will get attractive rate of interest. Believing the words, the complainant deposited two Rs.50,000/- vide Ex.A1 & A2 dated 18.12.2009 to the Manager, in turn, he deposited the same in the name of Krishna Kumari for a period of         15 years. Again, the complainant deposited Rs.50,000/- vide Ex.A3 dated 10.7.2010. This amount was deposited in the name of T. Krishna Kumari. When the complainant’s husband realised that the wrongful acts done by the 3^rd opposite party by depositing the above said amount in the name of Krishna Kumari and started demanding the 2^nd opposite party to repay the deposited amount with interest. When the 2^nd opposite party postponing the issue, the complainant’s husband represented to the 3^rd opposite party company. She also gave a complaint to the Zonal office and made an application to transfer the bonds in her name. The complainant got issued a legal notice to the opposite parties in detail vide Ex.A4, in which she stated that the opposite party sent a cheque for Rs.1,15,643/- dated 28.1.2013 under cheque No.069079 vide Ex.A5. The complainant submitted that she is from a Brahmin community on enquiry that Krishna Kumari belongs to another community. The complainant has no connection with the said Krishna Kumari and further submitted that there is no connection or relation between Krishna Kumari and her. She further submitted that the 3^rd opposite party who is behind this issue in depositing the amount in favour of Krishna Kumari. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.50,000/- with interest update at 24%.

            The 1^st opposite party denied the allegations made by the complainant and filed the proposal form in the name of T. Krishna Kumari and she nominated her grandmother, who is aged about 67 years vide Ex.B1. They also filed premium receipt vide Ex.B2 and also filed policy schedule, in this again she nominated her grandmother Sodemma, aged 67 years vide Ex.B3. The Divisional Office, Vizag wrote a letter to Krishna Kumari for taking the policy and for medical checkup vide Ex.B4. They also wrote another policy covering letter vide Ex.B5. The opposite parties filed terms and conditions vide Ex.B6. The opposite parties filed a letter written by T. Krishna Kumari to the opposite party Branch Manager of Amalapuram that she is gifting the amount under policy No.LN110900098546. They also filed form of absolute assignment by way of gift to Smt. A. Sodemma vide Ex.B8. Ex.B9 is undertaking letter. The opposite parties took an endorsement from T. Krishna Kumari vide Ex.B10 dated 1.9.2010 and filed discharge form from the complainant vide Ex.B11 and also filed another letter written by the complainant to give the cheque amount under the above said policy vide Ex.A12.

            The main contention of the complainant is the Manager of the opposite parties visited her and made her to deposit Rs.1,50,000/- by misrepresenting falsely to deposit in fixed deposit scheme. After payment of first Rs.50,000/-, the opposite parties invested the same in Shriram Life Insurance company Limited that too in the name of Tikka Krishna Kumari. Again she paid Rs.1,00,000/- in two installments and the said amount is also invested by them in the name of T. Krishna Kumari. In the proposal form, they mentioned the complainant’s name as nominee and showed her age as 67 years. In this proposal form, they also mentioned the complainant is the grandmother of the life assured T. Krishna Kumari.  The receipts i.e., Ex.A1 & A2 are issued in the name of the complainant and Ex.A3 is issued in the name of T. Krishna Kumari. The agents name mentioned as Nalla Ram Murthy. The complainant’s husband made several representations to the opposite parties and also to the Zonal office about the acts of the opposite parties with regard to the amount deposited by his wife. Basing on his complaints and representations, the opposite parties prepared Exs.B7 to B12 and paid Rs.1,15,632/- to the complainant.

            After perusing the documents filed by the opposite parties, it is clearly shows that they misled the complainant and fabricated all the documents and when the complainant’s husband made a complaint to Zonal office, they prepared Exs.B7 to B12 and paid Rs.1,15,632/- to her. They also submitted in their pleadings that T. Krishna Kumari is the granddaughter of the complainant. The complainant denied such fact that she is a Brahmin lady and she does not know about T. Krishna Kumari and on enquiry, she came to know that she is a non-Brahmin girl and she no way related to her. The 1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant paid Rs.1,50,000/- with them in Shriram Life Insurance, but the complainant denied that fact and she said that she wants to deposit the above said amount in fixed deposit only.  By the date of payment of the amount, the complainant aged about 67 years. Therefore, the opposite parties took the policy in the name of unknown person to the complainant and collecting the premiums from her by misrepresenting the facts.

It is observed of the above said documents and pleadings and it is clearly established that the opposite parties intentionally misrepresented the facts and collected the amounts from the complainant and took the policy in name of unknown person and the complainant’s husband realized that the opposite parties wrongly guiding them and therefore, he made a complaint to the branch office and also zonal office.

In view of the above discussion, it is noted that their Manager of Shriram Life Insurance Company Limited mislead the complainant and received the amounts for fixed deposit, but issued the policy in the name of T. Krishna Kumari, for which the company is vicariously liable for the acts of their employee. Therefore, they are liable for deficiency in service and misleading the complainant. We opined that the documents were filed by the opposite parties are fabricated and settled part of the amount to the complainant, but they have to pay the balance amount which was due to the complainant with interest.         

               Basing the above discussion, we opined that the opposite parties are liable to pay the balance amount deposited by the complainant with interest and costs.                        

 

 

8.   POINT No.3:  In the result, the complaint is allowed in part, directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 10% from the date of deposit i.e. 11.7.2010 till realization to the complainant.  We further direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,000/- towards the costs of the complaint to the complainant.  Time for compliance is two months from the date of this order.   

 

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, on this the  15^th day of November, 2016.

                           Sd/-                                                                                                                  Sd/- 

                     MEMBER                                                                                          PRESIDENT(FAC)

         

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

FOR COMPLAINANT: None.                                                                                             FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES: None.

 

  DOCUMENTS MARKED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

 

Ex.A1    Receipt dt.18.12.2009, bearing No.0509564.

Ex.A2    Receipt dt.18.12.2009, bearing No.0509565.

Ex.A3    Receipt dt.10.07.2010, bearing No.0507750.

Ex.A4    Office copy of the notice dt.18.02.2014.

Ex.A5    Photocopy of the cheque dt.28.1.2013 issued by Shriram Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

 

 

 

FOR 1^st OPPOSITE PARTY:-    

 

Ex.B1    Original proposal for Unit Linked insurance dt.31.07.2009.

Ex.B2    Original First premium receipt dt.21.08.2009 policy No.LN110900098546.

Ex.B3    Original policy schedule No.LN110900098546.

Ex.B4    Original policy covering letter dt.27.08.2009.

Ex.B5    Original policy covering letter dt.21.08.2009.

Ex.B6    Policy terms and conditions.

Ex.B7    Original letter addressed by T.K.Kumari to the Branch Manager intention to assign

  the policy to A. Sodemma.

Ex.B8    Original Form of Absolute Assignment of policy by way of gift executed by T.K.

  Kumari dt.18.07.2010 to A.Sodemma.

Ex.B9    Original letter dt.30.08.2010 executed by T.K. Kumari requesting the Divisional

  Manager to forward the policy to A.Sodemma.

Ex.B10  Endorsement Form of Absolute Assignment by way of gift dt.1.09.2010.

Ex.B11  Full satisfaction form of the policy No.LN110900098546 signed by A.Sodemma.

Ex.B12  Request letter dt.19.01.2013 addressed by A.Sodemma for refund of amount

  covered by policy No.LN110900098546 and endorsement made by Shriram Life

  Insurance Company dt.23.01.2013.

                 Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-

              MEMBER                                                                                                    PRESIDENT(FAC)