IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 205,206/09 DATED 18.08.2009<br /> COMMON ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant in C.C-205/2009<br /> <br /> Complainant in C.C-206/2009 Rajesh. K, # 15, 1st Stari, N.I.E. Ladies Hostel Road, Vishveshwara Nagara, 2nd stage, Mysore-8.<br /> Srinivasa Moorthi, #905/163, 4th Main Road, 6th cross, Vidhyaranyapuram, Mysore-8.<br /> <br /> <br /> (INPERSON)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party 1. Proprietor, Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd., Anil Deerubai Ambani Group, Reliance Capital Company, ‘H’ Block, 1st Stari, Deerubai Ambani Knowledge city, Nevi Mumbai, Maharastra-400710.<br /> 2. Branch Manager, Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd., 1st stari, Giriyas Plaza, Bangalore-Neelagiri Road, Opposite to K.S.R.T.C. Bus Stand, Mysore-570001.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. G.C. Advocate)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 15.06.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 13.07.2009<br /> Date of order : 21.08.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 2 MONTH 27 days <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. though both the complaints are different, the opposite parties are common, So also the facts and contentions of the parties being the same or similar, by this common order, both the complaints are being disposed off.<br /> <br /> 2. The complainants have filed the complaints seeking direction to the opposite parties to refund the premium amount of the insurance with interest and cost of the proceedings on the ground that, policies are not issued.<br /> <br /> 3. In CC.205/2009 it is alleged that, on 21.02.2009 the complainant paid a sum of Rs.13,000/- to the adviser appointed by the opposite parties by name R.N. Sharma towards Health Plus Wealth policy. Mr. Sharma had informed the complainant that, the policy would be sent by the company within 15 days through post. In spite of laps of 3 months the complainant did not receive any policy or documents. Then the complainant approached the opposite parties in the matter. But the opposite parties did not take any responsibility. Hence, it is prayed to direct the opposite parties to refund Rs.13,000/- with interest.<br /> <br /> 4. The allegations in CC.206/2009 are same except the amount of Rs.10,000/-.<br /> <br /> 5. In both the cases the opposite parties have appeared through advocate and filed versions contending that, Mr.Sharma is a necessary party to the complainants. Also they contend that since they have not received any amount from the complainants and also not issued any policy, the complainants are not the customers-consumers. Further it is contend that, Mr. Sharma whom the opposite parties have appointed, in the course of employment miss-utilized the amount he had accepted from customers, for which the opposite parties have filed complaint with police on 08.06.2009. No relationship of employee or employer existed between Mr. Sharma and the opposite parties. Other allegations made in the complaint are denied.<br /> <br /> 6. The respective complainants have filed their affidavits narrated the facts alleged in the complaint. Also they have produced certain documents. On the other hand one Mr. Satish, territory Manager of the Reliance Life Insurance Company Ltd., has filed affidavits and produced copy of F.I.R. against Mr. Sharma. We have heard the complainants as well as the learned advocate for the opposite parties and perused the material on record. <br /> <br /> 7. Now, the points for our consideration are as under.<br /> 1. Whether the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and that they are entitled to the amount claimed ?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 8. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Affirmative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 9. Point no. 1:- The fact that, complainants paid the premium amount to Mr. Sharma to get insurance policy, there is no dispute. Copy of the receipts issued by the said Sharma are on record. Even the opposite parties in the versions admitted that, Mr.Sharma had accepted huge sums of moneys. Hence, it has been established that, the complainants had paid the premium amount to Mr. Sharma.<br /> <br /> 10. The complainants grievances is that, in spite of receipt of the premium amount policy has not been issued. They contend that, Mr. Sharma had informed that, within 15 days the company will send policy through post but so for, they have not received. It is fact that, in the name of the complainants no policy have been issued by the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 11. The opposite parties contend that, they have never received any amount from the complainants as consideration for the policy and as such, they are not the customers and consumers.<br /> <br /> 12. In the versions at paragraph 7, it is admitted by the opposite parties that, they had appointed Mr. Aryan Sharms as an adviser, who was to canvas the life insurance policy to the customers. Hence, the fact that, Mr.Sharma was appointed as an adviser of the opposite parties has been admitted. When that is so, we found not substance in the contention of the opposite parties that, there does not exist any relationship of employee or employer-principal or agent between Mr.Sharma and the opposite parties. Further contentions of the opposite parties is that, Mr. Sharma is a necessary party to the complaints. Admittedly, he was the adviser of the opposite parties and as such, even though he can be considered as proper party, cannot be held as necessary party since he being the employee or agent of the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 13. Coming considered the contention of the opposite parties that the complainants are not policy holders-customers-consumers, the opposite parties in their versions at paragraph 11 have stated that “ it has come to the knowledge of the opposite parties through various complaints by various people that Aryan Sharma in the course of his employment with opposite parties to gain wrongfully had fraudulently induced various prospective customers of the respondents to avail the life insurance policies of the opposite parties Further Aryan Sharma had accepted huge sums of monies from various prospective customers of opposite parties”. Hence when the opposite parties specifically stated and admitted that, Mr. Sharma in the course of his employment under the opposite parties accepted huge sums of money from the customers of the opposite parties. We found no substance in the contention of the opposite parties that, the complainants are not customers or consumers.<br /> <br /> 14. Learned for the opposite parties argued that, the opposite parties being the company complainants ought to have paid the amount through cheque instead of cash. In this regard firstly, it is to be noted that, in the receipt in regard to terms and conditions there is mentioned that, the receipt is issued subject to clearance of the cheque if payment is made by cheque. It goes to show that, the receipt is subject to clearance of cheque if payment is made by cheque. Thereby one can easily infer that, the payment also can be made by cash. So also the complainants have produced a printout that they have obtained through internet from which it can be seen that, premium payments made more easier stating that, premiums can be paid by cash, cheque, D.D. or credit card.<br /> <br /> 15. Then the learned advocate for the opposite parties vehemently argued that, Mr. Sharma has miss-utilized the amount and is absconding for which criminal case has been filed with the police. It is between the opposite parties and Mr. Sharma. At the cost of repetition, admittedly Mr. Sharma was an agent or employee of the opposite parties, who was specifically appointed to canvas insurance policies of the opposite parties. Hence, contending that, employee or agent has miss-utilized the amount, the employer or the master, cannot escape from the liability.<br /> <br /> 16. From the facts and the material on record, we are of the opinion that, the complainants have proved deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in not issuing the polices in spite of the fact that, their agent or employee has received the premium amount. Hence, the complainants are entitle to said amount with interest. Accordingly, our finding on the point No.1 in affirmative. <br /> <br /> 17. Point No. 2:- From the discussions made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order: <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Both the complaints are allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,000/- to the complainant in CC-205/2009 by name Mr. Rajesh .K and Rs.10,000/- to the complainant in CC-206/2009 by name Mr. Srinivasa Murthy, with interest at the rate of Rs.18% per annum from 21.02.2009 till the realization, within 60 days from the date of this order.<br /> 3. Further the opposite parties shall pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to each of the complainants. <br /> 4. The original order shall be kept in CC-205/2009 and the Xerox copy in CC-206/2009.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 21st August 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar .J)<br /> Member<br /> <br />