IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE.<br /> <br /> Dated this 25th day of November 2010<br /> <br /> Complaint No. 522/2010<br /> <br /> Present: 1) Sri. T.H. Narayangowda, President.<br /> 2) Smt. Y.V. Uma Shenoi, Member.<br /> 3) Sri. Shivakumar .J, Member.<br /> <br /> Complainant: Puttathayamma W/o Mahadevappa, No.905:163(3), 4th main road, 6th cross, Vidyaranyapuram, Mysore-570008.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. HSY, Advocate).<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> Opponent: 1. The Proprietor, M/s Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd., Anil Dheerubai Ambani Groups, Reliable Capital Compnay, ‘H’ Block, 1st floor, Dheerubai Ambani Knowledge city, Nav Mumbai, Maharastra State-400710.<br /> 2. The Branch Manager, Reliance Insurance Company Ltd., 1st Floor, Giriyas Plaza, Opp. KSRTC Bus stand, Bangalore-Nilgiri road, Mysore-570001.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. GC, Advocate)<br /> <br /> (Order dictated by Sri. T.H.Narayana GowdaPresident)<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed by the complainant u/s. 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 against the opponents for directing them to refund the premium amount of Rs.10,000/- along with interest etc., <br /> <br /> 2) The case of the complainant in brief as set out in the complaint is as follows:-<br /> That on the persuasion of the adviser of the opponent’s Insurance Company, the complainant has paid the premium of Rs.10,000/- to the opponents company through their adviser namely Sri. Aryan Sharma on 18.03.2009 for issuing the Reliance Insurance Policy under Golden year plan of the opponents Insurance Company. The adviser of the opponents company has also issued the necessary receipt bearing No.WC0002857836 for having received the said amount of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant. At the time of payment of the said amount, the adviser of the opponents company has informed her that the policy will be sent by post within 15 days. But, subsequently in spite of waiting for a period of 3 months, the opponents have not sent any policy. Therefore she went in search of the adviser Sri. Aryan Sharma for enquiring about the policy but he was not found anywhere. Hence, she went to the local office of the opponent No.2 and on enquiry, she came to know that the said adviser has absconded. When she has demanded them for the refund of the premium amount of Rs.10,000/-, they have told her that they are not responsible for the said payment made by her to the adviser. But the company of the opponents have appointed him as their adviser and also given the code No. 20240416 and he was doing the business in the name and symbol of the company of the opponents. Therefore, the opponents are liable to refund the amount received by their adviser on behalf of the opponents company along with interest. Hence, this complaint is filed against the opponents for directing them to refund the amount along with interest. Mainly on these averments, the complainant has filed this complaint and urged for allowing the same in the ends of justice.<br /> <br /> 3) On the other hand, the opponents have resisted the complaint by filing their common version. In the said version, the opponents have denied the case of the complainant and their liability of paying the amount claimed in the complaint as false. The opponents have further contended that admittedly the complainant is neither a proposer of policy nor a policy holder of the opponents insurance company and thus the complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act 1986. They have further contended that there is no contractual relationship between them and the complainant in respect of the alleged dispute and therefore they are not liable for the amount claimed in the complaint. They have further contended that the averments of the complaint clearly discloses that the main grievance of the complainant is only against one Sri. Aryan Sharma and the receipt alleged to have been issued by him is a duplicate receipt. Therefore the complainant is at liberty to proceed against the said person for the recovery of the said amount and not against the opponents. They have further contended that in the proposal forms of the opponents company they have clearly mentioned that “ Customers are advised not to hand over cash to Reliance Life Insurance Advisors to meet the premium dues (including initial premium). Customers are requested to visit the nearest Reliance Life Insurance Branch to deposit the cash directly with the branch. Cash handed to Reliance Life Insurance Advisors is at Customer’s own risk”. Thus, in spite of publishing such a precautionary notice for the information of the public, the complainant has negligently made the alleged payment by way of cash without consulting the local office of the opponents company and also not obtained the genuine receipt. Therefore, the opponents are not liable for the negligent act of the complainant. Thus, the opponents have contended that there is absolutely no deficiency in service on their part and therefore they are not liable for the reliefs sought for in the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed in limine. Mainly, on these grounds, the opponents have urged for the dismissal of the complaint with costs.<br /> <br /> 4) After filing of version, the case was posted for evidence. Thereupon, the complainant has filed her affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of her case and closed her evidence. Thereafter, the opponents have filed the affidavit of opponent No.2 in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of their defence and closed their evidence. Hence, thereafter heard the arguments of both sides and then posted the case for orders.<br /> <br /> <br /> 5) In view of the aforesaid contentions taken by both the parties and the arguments submitted by their learned advocates, the points that would arise for our consideration are as follows:-<br /> <br /> 1) Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs sought for in the complaint?<br /> 2) What Order?<br /> <br /> 6) Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In the affirmative. <br /> Point No.2:- As per final order for the following, <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7) Point No. 1:- As already stated above, in order to establish her case, the complainant has filed her affidavit in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of her case. On the other hand, in order to establish their defence, the opponents have filed the affidavit of opponent No.2 in lieu of evidence and relied upon several documents in support of their defence. From the pleadings of both the parties clearly disclose that there is a dispute between them regarding the receipt of the premium amount by the opponents company and their liability of paying back the said amount to the complainant. Though the opponents have denied their liability of paying the premium amount paid to the adviser namely Sri. Aryan Sharma, the opponents have not denied that the said person namely Sri. Aryan Sharma is not their adviser and they have not appointed him as their adviser. Thus, the opponents have indirectly admitted that the said person namely Sri. Aryan Sharma is their adviser and therefore the payment received by him on behalf of the opponents company as their adviser, the opponents are liable to refund the said amount to the complainant. Of course, the opponents have taken the contention that in the proposal forms they have got printed the guidelines for the information of the customers to the effect that the customers are advised not to handover cash to the insurance advisers of their company and they are not liable for the payments made by the customers against the said guidelines published in the proposal forms for the information of the public. Thus, the opponents have taken the contention that in spite of taking such a precautionary measure by the company for the safety of the customers by publishing such guidelines in the proposal forms, the complainant has made the alleged payment by cash in violation of the said guidelines and therefore they are not liable for the payment of the said amount. But there is absolutely no evidence on record to show that the adviser of their company has read over and made known to the complainant about such guidelines printed in the proposal form. Apart from the same, the said guidelines are printed in English and also not in bold letters but the same is in very fine letters and therefore it is not possible to read immediately even by the literate persons. The opponents have also not placed any material on record to show that the complainant is an educated lady knowing the English language. Hence, under these circumstances, it is not possible to reach the conclusion that the complainant has made the payment by way of cash even after knowing such guidelines printed on the proposal form. Therefore, solely on the basis of printing such a material in the proposal forms, the opponents cannot escape from the liability of paying the amount collected by their agent on behalf of their company. <br /> <br /> 8) During the course of the arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the opponents has also submitted that the amount alleged to have been collected by the said adviser is not credited to the account of the company and therefore the opponents are not liable for the payment of the said amount. Thus the opponents counsel has urged for the dismissal of the complaint with cost. If the said amount is not credited to the account of the opponents company, the opponents are at liberty to take necessary action against their adviser for the recovery of the said amount. The complainant has made the payment of the premium amount by knowing the popularity of the opponents company in the market. Therefore, the opponents cannot escape from refunding the said amount to the complainant along with interest and cost of the complaint. Consequently, we hold that the complainant is entitled for the recovery of the said amount from the opponents along with reasonable rate of interest and cost. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the present banking rate of interest, we feel it just to reasonable to award the interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of payment i.e., from 18.03.2009 till the date of realization and the cost of Rs.2,000/-.<br /> <br /> 9) In view of all aforesaid reasons, we hold that the complainant has established her case made out in the complaint by placing sufficient material on record and therefore she is entitled for the reliefs sought for in the complaint. Consequently, we answer the point No.1 in the affirmative.<br /> <br /> 10) Point No.2:- In view of the reasons and the finding recorded on the point No. 1, we hold that the complaint deserves to be allowed with cost in the ends of justice. Hence in the final result, we proceed to pass the following,<br /> <br /> :: O R D E R ::<br /> <br /> The complaint is hereby allowed and the opponents are jointly and severally directed to refund the premium amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 18.03.2009 till the date of payment.<br /> <br /> The opponents are also directed to pay the cost of Rs.2,000/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> All the aforesaid amounts shall be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> (Order dictated, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on this 25th day of November 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> Member. Member. President.<br /> <br /> <br /> C.K.<br /> <br />