Delhi

New Delhi

CC/147/2015

Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Tata Aig Life Insurance Company Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

07 Jan 2020

ORDER

 

 

                             CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

                                 (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

                         ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                                                  NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.CC.147/2015                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

        Ravinder Kumar Aggarwal,

       S/o Late Ram Nath Aggarwal,

         88,  Sainik Farms, New Delhi-110062.

                   ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1.           Corporate/Registered Office,

TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

      Delphi-B Wing, 2^nd Floor, Orchard Avenue,

       Hiranandani Business Park, Powai, Mumbai-400 076.

 

2.           Policy serving Branch,

TATA AIG LifeInsurance Co. Ltd ,

3rd Floor,Unit 1,

Plot 2, DDA Building, District Centre,

Nehru Place, New Delhi-19.

 

3.            Branch Office at Delhi.

TATA AIG LifeInsurance Co. Ltd.

M-4, Mezzannine Floor,

18, Barakhamba Road,

Kanchanjunga Building, C.P. New Delhi-19.

 

4.          Issuing Agent,

Ranu mall (Agent Code-004388171, Agency Office-ND24)

C/o TATA AIG LifeInsurance Co. Ltd ,

3rd Floor,Unit 1,

Plot 2, DDA Building, District Centre,

Nehru Place, New Delhi-19.

 

5.            Agency Leader ,

Yogesh Kumar (Agent Code: 002086341,

Agency office: ND24)

C/o TATA AIG LifeInsurance Co. Ltd ,

3rd Floor,Unit 1,

Plot 2, DDA Building, District Centre,

Nehru Place, New Delhi-19.

 

6.           I.R.D.A. Consumer Affairs Department,

United India Tower,

9^th Floor,3-5-817/818,

Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-500029.

                                                                                                                              ….........OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

 

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

 

O R D E R

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the O.Ps under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The facts as alleged in the complaint are that the agent of OPs approached the complainant and misrepresented him that if the sum of Rs.3 lacs is deposited with OP’s Co. then it would be fixed deposit and he would be paid interest every month on the said amount.  OP-4 allured to the extent that the complainant issued cheque for a sum of Rs.3 lacs to OP-4 in favour of OP-1.  OP-4 visited the complainant’s residence and gave him 11 postdated cheques for a sum of Rs.1728/- each, however, the same was never paid to the complainant. 

2.     In the month of November, 2010, complainant requested OP-1 to refund the deposited amount and take back the 11 postdated cheques as he had not encased the same.  OP-1 instead of refunding the cheques issued a document in December, 2010, being the policy No.C225006216 which shows that the amount of Rs.3 lacs was not deposited in F.D. Scheme, rather, a policy was issued with yearly premium of Rs.1 lac. This shows that the OPs have mis-represented and forged the information and issued the policy by playing fraud resulting in cheating. The complainant sent a legal notice to OP-1.  He also lodged a complaint with the Grievance Cell of OP but all in vain.  Complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance.   

3.     Complaint has been contested by OP-1,2 & 3.  They have filed their written statement, wherein they denied any deficiency in services on their part and stated that the policy terms and conditions specifically provides for a Free Look Period of 15 days, during this period the policy owner is entitled to review the policy terms and conditions and request for a cancellation,  if dissatisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy.  The policy documents were delivered to the complainant on 24.09.2010 and the same was duly received by him.  The complainant failed to approach OP-1 for conversion/cancellation for refund of the policy during free-looking period, it was presumed that the contract was legally concluded between the parties.  The OP had acted with utmost care and diligence and as such the complainant is not entitled for any relief prayed.

4.     Both the parties have filed their  evidences by way of affidavit.

5.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

6.     Perusal of the present complaint shows that the case involves the complicated question of facts  on various issues.  The complainant in the present complaint has alleged that the OP Insurance company forged his photographs and signature and created a forged document i.e policy in question. The OPs have mis-represented and forged the information and issued the policy by playing fraud result in cheating. It is very difficult for us to come to the conclusion that whether any forgery or fraud has been played by the OPs with the complainant, the same can be verified by the adducing the evidence which is not possible in the present summary proceedings.  The issues referred herein required elaborate evidence which cannot be dealt in summary proceedings by the District Fora.

7.     It is apparent that the complainant is asking for the relief which require lengthy evidence and cross-examination.  The cross-examination of witness is life blood of legal system.  The trustworthiness of a witness can only be examined in cross-examination.  The Civil Court not being a summary trial court can easily go the root of every problem.  Admittedly, the Consumer Forum deals with the complaint in a summary proceeding, where cases involve a great deal of evidence, the same cannot be adjudicated upon by the Forum & for which the party concerned has to approach the civil court where elaborate procedure including recording of evidence is followed.

8.     In case titled Punjab Lloyd Ltd. Vs Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 301, it was held that the complicated question of law should be decided by the regular court. It further held that the decisive test in not the complicated nature of question of fact and law arising for decision. In another case titled LIC & Ors. Vs Surinder Kaur & Ors. Civil Appeal No.5334 or 2006 (Arising or of SLP (c) No.17866 of 2005) decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 01.12.2006, it has been held that complex question of facts cannot be decided by the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act and such arises can be subject matter of regular Civil Court.

9.     In view of the above, we are inclined to hold that that the present complaint involves complicated questions of facts as well as law regarding the alleged loss in question.  The issues raised in the present complaint required elaborate oral and documentary evidence and the examination of the witnesses for the proper disposal of the matter.  The proper forum for adjudication of the present complaint is Civil Court.  Consumer Protection Act being the special Act where only summary proceedings are taken up and as such the adjudication of the present complaint is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum, hence the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court as per law. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, complainant can take advantage of the decision rendered in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institution 1995 (3) SCC 583.  

A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 07/01/2020.

          

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                     (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                           (H M VYAS)

                     MEMBER                                                         MEMBER