Kundan Kumar Kumai

This is a complaint filed under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Brief facts of the complainant’s case are that, the complainant had taken 79 policies/schemes, the total maturity value of which was Rs. 13,35,762/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs thirty-five thousand seven hundred sixty-two) only, from the OP no.1, functioning under different names and styles, but the policies/schemes, belonged to the OP no.1. The OP no.2 is the Regional Office of the OP no.1, whereas the OP no.3 is the Area Manager of the OP no.1 and the OP no.4 is the Registered Office of the OP no.1.

The maturity dates of the above policies/schemes started from 31/10/2019 till 26/04/2021. Since 31/10/2019, the complainant had visited the OP no.1 office, on innumerable occasions but with no result. On every occasion, the OP no.1 gave new reasons for not handing over the maturity amount to the complainant and even financial issues of the company were cited.

The above policies/schemes had been purchased, from the entire life-saving of the complainant for years together. Thus, when the complainant was having financial issues of his own, he had been forced to take loans from different places to meet them. Finding no alternative, the complainant had been forced to file this complaint before this Commission with necessary prayers, mentioned in the complaint.

The OPs in order to contest the claim, filed a joint written version wherein they had mentioned that they were unable to make the payment, since there was an embargo order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. At the same time, they had denied the contention of the complainant for not making payment, as the complainant failed to produce Sahara Certificate, KYC before the Opposite Parties. Thereafter, they had denied the contentions of the complainant and had even denied that the complainant was a consumer and the grievance of the complaint should be redressed in a Civil Court. They therefore prayed for dismissal of the case.

The complainant had examined herself and filed affidavit in support of her case along with certain documents, filed along with the complaint. The OPs had been given opportunities to challenge the affidavit by filing questionnaires as well as evidence on affidavit, in support of their contention, but they failed to avail the opportunities.

Decisions with Reasons

Ld. Advocate for the complainant at the time final hearing, had argued that the complainant had purchased 79 policies/schemes from the OPs, with the maturity value of Rs. 13,35,762/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs thirty-five thousand seven hundred sixty-two) only, which the OPs had failed to honour, inspite of several attempts by the complainant. The above policies/schemes had been purchased from the entire life-saving of the complainant and therefore the complainant was under tremendous financial constraints, for which reason, the case should be allowed as per the prayers mentioned in the complaint. It was also argued that the OPs had been denying making the payments, by citing the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinak Pani Mohanty Vs. Union of India & Ors. in I.A. No.56308 of 2023 in Writ Petition (C) no.191 of 2022, as embargo, but there was no such embargo or stay mentioned in the above judgement.

Ld. Advocate for the Respondent at the time of final hearing, submitted that the complainant had not produced the original certificate before the OPs for internal process for disbursement of payment for which reason, the payment could not be made.  She had also submitted that the complainant was not a consumer and therefore the case should be redressed in a Civil Court only. She had also argued, that because of the embargo order, passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinak Pani Mohanty Vs. Union of India & Ors. in I.A. No.56308 of 2023 in Writ Petition (C) no.191 of 2022, the payments could not be made and the legitimate claim could only be settled by the on-line portal being developed by Stock Holding Document Management Services Ltd.

From the prayer in the complaint, as well as, the address of the parties the pecuniary as well as the physical jurisdiction, appears to have been satisfied.

Even though the argument that the complaint, not being a consumer dispute has been raised in the written version as well as at the time of argument, but a petition dated 12/08/2022, challenging the maintainability of the case, under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, on the ground that the complaint was not a consumer, had been disposed of by the Order of this Commission No.18 dated 24/01/2023, rejecting the prayer. No redressal against the above order had been sought. Therefore, this claim of the OPs that the complainant is not a consumer, fails.

As regards the factual aspects of the deposits in different policies/schemes totaling to 79 with the maturity value of Rs. 13,35,762/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs thirty-five thousand seven hundred sixty-two) only, is concerned, there is no contradictory evidence forthcoming before this Commission, challenging the same. On the contrary, inspite of numerous opportunities the OPs failed to put any questionnaires challenging the evidence on affidavit. Moreover, no dispute has been raised with regard to the purchase of the 79 policies/schemes by the complainant or against any single policy/scheme, either in the written version or at the time of argument or by way of any contradictory evidence. Hence, when the purchase of the above-mentioned policies/schemes is not disputed, the case of the OPs in this regard also fails. In view of the above findings, the complainant has been able to prove the case in his favour.

As regards the decision passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pinak Pani Mohanty Vs. Union of India & Ors. in I.A. No.56308 of 2023 in Writ Petition (C) no.191 of 2022, there is nothing in the decision which debars or stays the proceedings of this nature.

In view of the above, it can be safely concluded that the complainant had been able to prove his case and the case therefore succeeds.

It is therefore,

ORDERED

That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest but without cost.

The OPs no. 1, 2, 3 & 4, jointly or severally, are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 13,35,762/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs thirty-five thousand seven hundred sixty-two) only, along with interest @ 9% per annum, to the complainant, from the date of maturity till the date of re-imbursement.

The OPs no. 1, 2, 3 & 4, jointly or severally, are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs) only, towards mental pain and agony to the complainant.

The OPs no. 1, 2, 3 & 4, jointly or severally, are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty-five thousand) only, towards litigation cost to the complainant.

The above Order shall be complied within 45 (forty-five) days from the date of this Order failing which the entire amount shall attract an interest @ 9% per annum, till the date of realization.