BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah , B.Com B.L., President

And

Sri. M.Krishna Reddy, M.Sc., M.Phil., Male Member

Wednesday the 27^th day of October , 2010

C.C.No 127/09

Between:

1.    G. Jayapal, S/o. G.Swamanna,

2.M.F.A.Vijaya Rani, W/o. G.Jayapal,

            Both are R/o. H.N.30/706, Bishops House Compound, Bommala Sathram, NANDYAL-518 502.                                        …..Complainant

                                      Vs-

M/s. Bajaz Allianze Life Insurance Company Limited, By its Senior Divisional Manager,

D.No.201,2^nd Floor, Mahaveer Bhavan, Bhasheerbag, Hyderabad.                                               …Opposite Party

          This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.S.Siva Rama Krishna Prasad, Advocate, for complainant, and Sri.Y.Jaya Raju, Advocate for opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Sri. T.Sundara Ramaiah, President)

C.C. No. 127/09

1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying to direct the OP

1.  to refund a sum of Rs.45,000/- with interest
                @ 24% p.a from 17-07-2007 or to assign the Insurance  

 Policies in favour of the complainants w.e.f. 17-07-2007 with   

 all benefits.

1. to grant a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony
2. cost of the complaint and
3.     such other relief or reliefs  as the Hon’ble Forum may deem fit

and  proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2)   The case of the complainants is as follows :-  The 2^nd complainant  is the wife of the 1^st complainant . The OP floated a insurance scheme under the name ULIF. Under the said scheme one has to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/- p.a for 3 years. The 1^st complainant obtained D.D bearing No.757245 on 17-07-2007 for Rs.15,000/-. The 2^nd complainant obtained D.D. bearing No.757246 dated 17-07-2007 for Rs.15,000/- through SBI Main Branch , Nandyal . On 26-07-2007 the 2^nd complainant obtained a D.D bearing No.190485 for a sum of Rs.15,000/- through Andhra Bank, Nandyal Branch. All the D.Ds along with proposal forms were sent to OP through the local agent. But the complainants did not receive the insurance policies from the OP. The local agent who received the D.D absconded and left the job. The complainants number of occasions approached the OP but there was no response. The complainants are deprived of their benefits of insurance policy. The OP failed to issue insurance policies infavour of the complainants after receiving the necessary amounts. Hence the complaint.             

3.     OP filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. It is denied that the OP received the proposal forms along with D.Ds of the complainants through the local agent. The complaint is bared by limitation. The OP never received the proposals from the complainants for issuance of insurance policies. The complainants have not given the particulars of the agent of the OP. In the absence of the details of the agent it is difficult for the OP to make enquiry and verify the records to no about the transactions. The complaint is liable to be dismissed for non disclosure of material facts. Since there is no proposal for insurance from the side of the complainants the question of issuance of policies does not arise. No payment was received by the OP from the complainants. This forum has no jurisdiction and complaint is liable to be dismissed.           

4.     On behalf of the complainant Ex.X1 to X3 are marked and the sworn affidavit of the 1^st complainant is filed.  On behalf of the opposite parties Ex.B1 and B2 are marked and sworn affidavit of OP is filed.

5.     Both sides filed written arguments.

6.     The points that arise for consideration are      

(i)     whether the complaint is in time  ?

(ii)    whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP ?

(ii)    whether the  complainants are entitled to the relief as prayed for?

(iv)   to what relief?

7. Point No.1 :  The complainants filed the present complaint claiming for refund  of sum of Rs.45,000/- from the OP. It is the case of the complainants that they obtained 3 D.Ds for Rs.15,000/- each on      17-07-2007 and 26-07-2007 to obtain insurance policies from OP. It is contended by the OP that the complaint is bared by time. The period of limitation to file the complaint before the District Consumer Forum is two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.   According to the complainants they obtained the D.Ds infavour of the OP on 17-07-2007 and the OP failed to issue the policies in their favour. The complainants filed the present complaint on 01-07-2009 within two years from the date of obtaining the D.Ds. Therefore the contention of the OP that the complaint is bared by time can not be accepted.

8. Point No.2 &3:- It is the case of the complainants that they obtained 3 D.Ds infavour of the OP to obtain insurance policies and that the said D.Ds along with proposal forms were sent to OP through local agent. As seen from Ex.X1 to X3 it is very clear that the 2^nd complainant obtained one D.D for Rs.15,000/- on 17-07-2007 and  another D.D for Rs.15,000/- on 26-07-2007 . The 2^nd complainant obtained D.D. for Rs.15,000/- on 17-07-2007 infavour of the OP. The OP filed Ex.B2. It is mentioned in Ex.B2 that the D.Ds bearing No.757245, 757246 and 190485 were received by the OP through their agent by name M. Maheswara Reddy. It is the specific case of the OP that proposal forms of the complainant along with D.Ds were not received through the agent and that no policy was issued infavour of the complainants. The complainants did not place any material to show that they handed over the proposal forms along with D.Ds to the  authorized agent of the OP. The complainants could not say the name of the alleged agent through  whom they sent the proposal forms to the OP .In the sworn affidavit of the complainant it is stated  that the local agent to whom  they handover the  proposal forms absconded  the duties and left the job. In the absence of documentary evidence that the OP received the proposal forms of the complainants through the agent the OP can not be made responsible for the loss sustained by the complainants.

9.     According to the OP the D.D bearing 757245 was received along with proposal form of P.J.Nirmala on 02-08-2007, the D.D bearing No. 757246 was received along with proposal form of J.Rajasekharappa  on 02-08-2007 and the  D.D. bearing NO. 190485 was received along with proposal form of E.Ram Mohan Setty on 07-08-2007. It is further case of the OP that the said proposal forms were received by OP through their agent M. Maheswara Reddy having code No.2300001132. As seen from Ex.B2 it is very clear that the D.Ds referred by complainant were received by the OP along with proposal forms of P.J. Nirmala , J.Rajasekharappa  and B.Ram Mohan Setty and accordingly the insurance policies were issued in their name. The said facts are clearly mentioned in the sworn affidavit of the OP. Merely because the complainants applied for D.Ds in the name of the OP it can not be said that those D.Ds were sent to OP along with the proposal forms of the complainants. The D.D obtained by one person can be enclosed to the proposal form of another person. It is the look out of the OP to issue insurance policy to the person in whose name the proposal form along with the D.D was received. In the instance case as already stated there is no material on record to come to the conclusion that the proposal forms of the complainants were received  by the OP along with the D.Ds obtained by them.  As seen from the records available and evidence it is very clear that the OP issued the insurance polices to P.J Nirmala and J. Rajasekharappa, and E.Ram Mohan Setty whose proposals were received along with D.Ds  for Rs.15,000/- each. It appears that somebody cheated the complainants by taking the D.Ds from the hands of the complainants. The complainants are not in a position  to trace the person to whom they handed over the D.Ds along with the alleged proposal forms .There is also possibility  for the complainants to handover the D.Ds obtained them to some other person to have policies in their name . As there is no evidence to show that the proposals of the complainants were received by the OP, the OP can not be direct to refund the amount of Rs.45,000/- as claimed by the complainants. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. Therefore the complainants are not entitled to the relief as prayed for.

  10. Point No.4:  In the result the complaint is dismissed. In the circumstances no costs.

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 27^th day of October,  2010.

         Sd/-                                                                 Sd/-   

MALE MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant : Nil            For the opposite parties : Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.X1.       Photo copy Draft Application Form dt.17-07-2007 for Rs.15,000/- of State Bank of India, Nandyal.

Ex.X2.       Photo copy Draft Application Form dt.17-07-2007 for Rs.15,000/- of State Bank of India, Nandyal.

Ex.X3.       Photo copy of Demand Draft / Pay Order Application Form dt.26-07-2007 for Rs.15,000/-.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:   

Ex.B1.       Letter dt.29-09-2010 of OP.

Ex.B2.       D.D. Details particulars

        Sd/-                                                                              Sd/-

MALE MEMBER                                                            PRESIDENT

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties

Copy was made ready on :

Copy was dispatched on   :