BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT

SRI.  P.V. JAYARAJAN                               : PRESIDENT

SMT. PREETHA G. NAIR                           : MEMBER

SRI. VIJU  V.R.                                             : MEMBER

C.C.No. 660/2023 Filed on 12/12/2023

ORDER DATED: 09/10/2024

ORDER

SRI.P.V. JAYARAJAN, PRESIDENT:

This is a complaint filed under section 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the matter stood over to this date for consideration.After hearing the matter the commission passed an order as follows:

2. This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  After admitting the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties to appear before this Commission on 05/02/2024.  The said notices were accepted by both the opposite parties on 08/01/2024.  After accepting the notices 1^st & 2^nd opposite party failed to appear before this Commission and hence on 18/03/2024, both the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties were called absent and set ex parte. 

  3. The case of the complainant in short is that on 6^th October 2022 the 1^st opposite party contacted him over phone and offered the complainant a fixed deposit plan of Rs.1 lakh for a period of 3 years.  As per the offer made by the 1^st opposite party the complainant is entitled to get 12% interest.  At that time the complainant informed the 1^st opposite party that he is getting 12% interest from a co-operative society and hence he is not interested to deposit in the scheme proposed by the 1^st opposite party.  Then the 1^st opposite party told the complainant that if the complainant has got a granddaughter aged 18 years, she will get a free life insurance as a bonus.  When such a proposal was mooted by the 1^st opposite party, the complainant shown some interest and the 1^st opposite party was asked to come to his home for further details.  Accordingly on 10^th October 2022 the 1^st opposite party came to the complainant’s house and she explained the plan to the complainant’s wife and a cheque for Rs.1 lakh was handed over to the 1^st opposite party.  At that time the 1^st opposite party promised that the complainant will get the fixed deposit certificate within a week.  But after 40 days the complainant was shocked to receive a document which is an insurance policy and not a fixed deposit certificate as promised by the 1^st opposite party.  On verification of that policy document it was noticed that the complainant has to pay Rs.1 lakh each for 7 years and that the sum assured is Rs.6,17,979/-.  The policy term is shown as 10 years.  On receipt of the policy documents the complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party over phone but she was not picking up the phone when ever telephoned to her.  It is also revealed that the address she gave to the complainant was not a traceable address.  Hence the complainant went to the branch office and the Branch Manager kept the complainant waiting for 3 days.  The complainant’s grievance is that the proposal from the 1^st opposite party was in respect of a fixed deposit and not an insurance policy as now seen.  As per the terms onetime payment of Rs.1 lakh was the required amount.  But as per the policy the complainant has to pay Rs.1 lakh each for 7 years.  The 1^st opposite party also promised life coverage for self, health insurance for wife, insurance as a bonus in respect of fixed deposit but as per the policy there was no health insurance and the life coverage for the granddaughter alone who is aged 20 years.  Another allegation of the complainant is that the opposite parties have deducted the 2^nd installment of Rs.1 lakh from the Bank account of the complainant without any authorization.  The attitude of the Manager and the staff towards the complainant was very much disappointing and the complainant approached this Commission for redressing his grievances.  The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties being declared ex parte, they have not filed written version or affidavit against the evidence adduced by the complainant.         

4. Evidence in this case consists of PW1 and Ext.P1 to P6 from the side of the complainant.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 being declared ex parte, there is no affidavit or documents by way of evidence from the side of the opposite parties. 

5. Issues to be considered:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice

               on the part of the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitle to the relief claimed in the
3.  
4. Order as to cost?

6. Heard. Perused affidavit, documents and connected records.  To substantiate the case of the complainant, the complainant himself sworn an affidavit as PW1 and Ext.P1 to P6 were produced and marked.  Ext.P1 is the copy of the insurance policy.  Ext.P2 is the mandate for ECSI prepared by the 1^st opposite party.  Ext.P3 is the pen drive and the text contents of the pen drive.  Ext.P4 is the copy of the proper mandate form of a bank.  Ext.P5 is the reply letter from Union bank of India.  Ext.P6 is the article published in Dhanam Magazine.  As the opposite parties not produced any evidence by way of affidavit or documents, the evidence adduced by the complainant stands unchallenged.  There is no evidence from the side of opposite parties to discredit the evidence adduced by the complainant.  In the absence of any contra evidence from the side of the opposite parties, we accept the evidence adduced by the complainant.  Ext.P1 proves that the insurance policy was issued in favour of the complainant instead of issuing a fixed deposit certificate as promised by the 1^st opposite party.  Ext.P3 contents of the conversation between the complainant and the opposite parties recorded in the pen drive which reveals the fact that the complainant was made to believe that the transaction was in the nature of a fixed deposit and in fact the opposite parties issued policy certificate instead of fixed deposit certificate.   By swearing an affidavit as PW1 and by marking Ext.P1 to P6, we find that the complainant has succeeded in establishing his case against the opposite parties.  From the available evidence before this Commission, we find that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  It is also evident from the evidence adduced by the complainant that the complainant has suffered mental agony and financial loss due to the act of the opposite parties.  As the financial loss and mental agony to the complainant was caused due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties, we find that the opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss sustained by the complainant.  In view of the above discussions, we find that this is a fit case to be allowed in favour of the complainant. 

In the result the complaint is allowed.  The opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Only) as compensation and Rs.2,500/- (Rupees Two Thousand Five Hundred only) being the cost of this proceedings to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost shall carry an interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till the date of remittance/realization.      

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Court, this the 09^th  day of October,  2024.

C.C. No. 660/2023

APPENDIX

1. COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

2. COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

3. OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

4. OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS: