Ld. Advocate(s)
For Complainant: Subhasis Ray
For OP/OPs :Swapan Kumar Ghosh
Date of filing of the case : 19.07.2020
Date of Disposal of the case : 28.02.2024
Final Order / Judgment dtd.28.02.2024
Pith and substance of the present case is that the complainant Makbul Rahaman purchased one LICI policy on the basis of the approach by OP
(2)
CC/37/2020
No.2 Kajal Kumar Kundu who is the wife of Rupa Kundu OP No.1 vide plan no. 817 single premium endowment . OP No.1 Rupa Kundu acts as agent of OP No.3 Branch Manager LICI, Krishnagar . On 25.12.2019 the complainant paid Rs.50,000/- cash to the OP NO.2 for purchasing the plan no. 817 single premium endowment plan in the name of his wife Tanuja Khatun and himself of Rs.25,000/- each. The complainant subsequently, requested to the OP No.2 to give his policy bond but he did not give it. Lastly on 01.07.2020 the complainant informed to the OP No.2 that he would complain to the Branch office if the policy bond is not given. So, the OP NO.2 gave one policy bond no. 408771720 in the name of Tanuja Khatun along with a money receipt in the name of the complainant. Subsequently, the complainant seen that said two policy are not as per plan no. 817 rather policy no.408771720 is plan no.844 and is not single premium endowment plan. And premium for Rs.966/- in the name of the Tanjua Khatun being policy no. 409050067 is also not a plan no. 817 but it is under plan no. 843 premium amount of Rs.957/-. It was further found that mode of payment of premium is quarterly . He gave two renewal premium receipts for Rs.1,000/- and Rs.1009/- and the name of the agent is Rupa Kundu code no. 11098445. The complainant was further informed that Rupa Kundu did not work as agent of LICI but OP NO.2 works on behalf of LICI. OP No.3 LICI and OP NO.4 Divisional Manager of LICI knew all these facts but they did not take any steps. After calculation the complainant found that the OP No.2 deposited of RS.2,000/- (1000+1000) in respect of policy 409050067 and Rs.2,018/- in the name of Tanjua Khatun for policy no.408771720, total deposit of Rs.4018(2000+2018). Subsequently, the complainant demanded Rs.50,000/- minus Rs.4018.00=Rs.45,982/- from the OP No.2 but the OP misbehaved the complainant in slang language and denied to refund the said sum of Rs.45,982/-. OP No.2 is not an agent of LICI and as such he is cheating the public. Therefore, the complainant suffered harassment for which he claimed compensation by filing this case. The cause of action arose on 01.07.2020 and thereafter, everyday till the filling of this case. The complainant prayed for an award for a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the OPs with compound interest @12%, Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental pain and agony and further litigation cost for the present case.
The case was decided to be heard ex-parte against OP No.1&2 Rupa Kundu and Kajal Kumar Kundu.
OP No.3,4&5 contested the case by filing W/V denying all the allegations against them. The positive defence case of OP No.4 is that the complainant and OP NO.1 Rupa Kundu and OP No.2 Kajal Kumar Kundu are related in respective policy matter and subsequent event, all other points and their transaction matter in connection with the respective policy of proposer and proposal . OP No.3 Branch Manager LICI is in no way related with the matter. After getting the information through notice they have taken action as per the provisions of law and guidelines of LICI. So, Branch Manager of LICI has taken a good view in favour of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3,4&5. So, OP NO.3,4&5 should be expunged from the case and their not liable in any respect .
Pro-OP No.5 filed a separate W/V wherein they denied the allegation . The positive defence case of Pro-OP No.5 is that no specific relief has been sought against Pro-OP No.5. The complaint is basically between the complainant and the OP NO.1-4. The Pro-OP No.5 has nothing to do in the matter. Since onus to resolve the grievance is on the agent and the insurance company OP No.1-4, so the Pro-OP NO.5 is not responsible. The Pro-OP No.5 IRDAI has put
(3)
CC/37/2020
in place a system called integrated grievance Management system to raise complaint. The role of Pro-OP NO.5 is just to regulate the insurance sector. The complainant is not a consumer of pro-op no.5 within the C.P Act. The complaint is not maintainable against the Pro-op no.5. The Pro-OP NO.5 prayed for an order to remove the Pro-OP No.5 as a party to the present complaint and dismiss the complaint against Pro-OP No.5.
After perusing the pleadings of the parties, the Commission is of the view that the following points should be ascertained for proper adjudication of this case.
Points for Determination
Point No.1.
Whether the present case is maintainable in law.
Point No.2.
Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.
Point No.3.
To what other relief if any the complainant is entitled to get.
Decision with Reasons
Point No.1.
Both the OP NO.3,4&5 challenged the case as not maintainable yet in course of argument Ld. Senior Counsel did not resort to the said defence plea. In other words the OP NO.3-5 did not specify any point in course of argument as to why the case is not maintainable.
However, having perused the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on record it transpires that the present case is not barred by any provisions of law and the relation between the parties come within the purview of the C.P Act.
Accordingly, it is held that the case is maintainable in its present form and prayer. So, Point No.1 is answered in affirmative and goes in favour of the complainant.
Point No.2&3.
Both the points have a close link, so these are taken up together for brevity and convenience of discussion.
It is the specific allegation of the complainant that he registered two insurance policy with the LICI through the agent Rupa Kundu having agent code 11098445. But actually the said Rupa Kundu is not a agent of LICI but she used to act as an agent. On the contrary her husband Kajal Kumar Kundu did everything on behalf of Rupa Kundu. It is the further allegation that the complainant purchased LICI policy under plan no. 817 in the name of the complainant Makbul Rahaman and her wife Tanuja Khatun for Rs.25,000/- each. But the agent OP No.1 and OP No.2 misguided her and registered two policies being policy no.408771720 under plan no.844 and policy no. 409050067 under
(4)
CC/37/2020
plan no. 843 being single premium endowment plan for a premium of Rs.966/- and Rs.957/- respectively.
The complainant in order to substantiate the case adduced both oral evidence in the form of affidavit in chief and documentary evidence by filing the following documents.
Annexure-1 is the original policy bond of LICI.
Annexure-2 is the copy of policy bond cover.
Annexure-3 is the first premium receipt paid by Tanuja Khatun.
Annexure-4 is the renewal premium for policy no.408771720 for a sum of Rs.1009/-.
Annexure-5 is the first premium receipt for policy no.409050067 for Rs.1000/-.
Annexure-6 is the renewal premium for policy no. 409050067.
All the documents stand unchallenged and undiscarded .Since OP NO.1&2 did not contest the case, so it is heard ex-parte against them.
Moreover, OP NO.3-5 LICI did not dispute that the complainant did not register the disputed policies. The OP NO.3-5 only averred that the dispute relates between the complainant and OP NO.1&2 , so they have no liability in this case.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued that the OP NO.3&4 cannot avoid their liability since the OP NO.1 Branch Manager LICI of Krishangar Branch issued a show cause notice to Rupa Kundu over the matter . Unless there was accountability over the matter the OP NO.3 and OP No.4 could not have issued show cause to the OP No.1&2.
The argument has reasonable force. The documents filed are proved by the complainant project that all the premium were paid to the OP No.3&4 authority and the policy was issued by the OP No.3&4. It is a big question as to how the policy could be issued without checking the proposal form or the applications form.
The OP No.3&4 could not prove any document that the complainant applied for issuance plan no.844 and 843.
On the contrary the complainant categorically pleaded and adduced evidence to the effect that he updated for plan no. 817.
Annexure-1 discloses that the date of commencement of the policy is 27.12.2019 but it was delivered on 01.07.2020. So, the complainant has been deprived of checking the free look option.
The argument has reasonable force. It is evident from the documents that due to not providing the free look option to the complainant he has been deprived of the said facility.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant further argued that in para 8 of the W/V that as soon as OP NO.3 Branch Manager LICI was informed the matter through notice, they have taken the good view in favour of the complainant.
(5)
CC/37/2020
So, the complainant has a genuine case otherwise OP NO.3&4 would not have taken good view in favour of the complainant.
The argument has reasonable force.
Ld. Defence Counsel for LICI argued that the complainant never lodged any complaint to the LICI in respect of the free look period or that all the OPs cheated them.
The argument is not acceptable in as much as there is nothing within the case record that the option of the complainant was duly verified before registering the two plans instead of the option given by the complainant in regard to their preferred plan of 817 instead of 843 and 844.
Ld. Defence Counsel further argued that the complainant also did not inform to the LICI regarding receipt of the two policies. All the disputes were centred between the complainant and OP NO.1&2.
Ld. Advocate for the complainant argued that the principal cannot be responsible for the act of his agent. The argument is acceptable on the ground that act of the agent binds is principal as well.
OP No.3&4 put some questions in cross-examination to the complainant where from it is revealed that complainant categorically answered that both the agent and LICI are jointly liable. He further confirmed in cross-examination that the dispute is a consumer dispute and the complainant is a consumer under the C.P Act. The LICI recruited the agent Rupa Kundu and the said agent and her husband collected the money amounting to Rs.50,000/- from the complainant on behalf of LICI as an agent by saying that she would make two policies for Rs.25,000/- each for the complainant and his wife. She did not return the money. The said agent is still working under LICI ,Krishnagar Branch.
It is the settled position of law that answer given in cross-examination has a specific effect.
Complainant also put some questions to the OP NO.3&4 wherein the OP NO.3&4 admitted that they issued show cause notice to the OP NO.1 Rupa Kundu. It further appears that OP NO.1 acted as an agent and the allegation labelled against both OP No.1&2 could not be discarded. So, the OP NO.3&4 has vicarious liability for the act of OP No.1&2. The liability is jointly and severally .
In the light of the discussion made hereinabove and the observation found in the foregoing paragraph the Commission is of the firm view that the complainant successfully proved the case against the opposite parties.
So, points no.2&3 are answered in affirmative and decided on behalf of the complainant.
In the result complaint case succeeds on contest against OP NO.3&4 and ex-parte against OP NO.1&2 and dismissed against Pro-OP No.5.
Hence,
It is
(6)
CC/37/2020
Ordered
that the complaint case no.CC/37/2020 be and the same is allowed on contest against OP NO.3&4 and ex-parte against OP No.1&2 and dismissed against Pro-OP No.5 with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand). The complainant Makbul Rahaman do get an award with a direction to OP No.3&4 to give the complainant the policy no. 817 and cancel the previous policies in the name of the complainant Makbul Rahaman bearing policy no.409050067 and in the name of policy holder Tanuja Khatun bearing policy no.408771720 and issue fresh policy under policy no. 817 as per the rules and regulations of LICI. OP No.1&2 are directed to refund Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) to the complainant for the purpose of purchasing new policy under policy no. 817. The OP No.1&2 are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) towards litigation cost and harassment and mental pain and agony. Both the parties are jointly and severally responsible for implementing the award failing which the entire award money shall carry an interest @8% p.a from the date of passing the final order till the date of its realisation. Both the OP NO.1&2 are directed to pay Rs.65,000/- (Rupees sixty five thousand) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of passing the final order.
All Interim Applications (I.A) stand disposed of accordingly.
D.A to note in the trial register.
The case is accordingly disposed of.
Let a copy of this final order be supplied to both the parties at free of costs.
Dictated & corrected by me
............................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,) ................ ..........................................
PRESIDENT
(Shri HARADHAN MUKHOPADHYAY,)
I concur,
........................................
MEMBER
(NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY)
