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 /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC465/10 DATED 02.03.2010<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant Jagadish .G, No.515/A, V.S. Street, 4th cross, K.N. Agrahara, K.R. Mohalla, Mysore-570024.<br /> <br /> (In person)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., State Bank of India, New Delhi-110001. or SBICPSL, Post Bag No.28, GPO, New Delhi-110001. <br /> ( Exparte)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 11.12.2010<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : <br /> Date of order : 02.03.2010<br /> Duration of Proceeding : <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint seeking a direction to the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.<br /> 2. In the complaint it is alleged that, on 10.10.2006, over phone the opposite party informed that, there is an offer that, if the complainant makes one time payment of Rs.2,613/-, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- will be paid within 3 years by December 2009. Though the complainant refused, the opposite party insisted representing that, it is good offer and further representation was made by the opposite party that, from the credit card of the complainant, monthly a sum of Rs.300/- to 400/- will be deducted in installments. For that the complainant consented hoping that, the amount that the opposite party offered to pay can be utilized for the education of his son. Thereafter, 2-3 times the complainant paid installments, but the opposite party did not send original documents. Then the complainant called upon the opposite party over phone, for which the opposite party told that, there is no insurance and no proper reply was given. The complainant took it, that the opposite party has cheated and subsequent installments were not credited. The opposite party has issued notice demanding Rs.26,000/-. Hence, compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- is sought.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party despite due service of the notice, remained absent.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and certain documents are produced. We have heard the complainant and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now the points arises for consideration are as under:-<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and that he is entitled to the reliefs sought?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 7. Point no. 1:- Firstly, the complainant in the complaint has alleged, he paid premium of Rs.2,613/-, for which the opposite party promised to pay Rs.3,00,000/- within 3 years by the end of December 2009. To substantiate that the opposite party promised to pay Rs.3,00,000/-, in case of payment of only one premium, no cogent evidence is placed on record. Of course, from the SBI card, Xerox copy statement, it can be seen that, towards premium and admission fees, a sum of Rs.2,613/- has been deducted on 10.10.2006. Though the complainant has alleged that the opposite party did not give any original document, the complainant has produced Xerox copy of certificate of insurance. Wherefrom the complainant got Xerox copy is not explained. Under the circumstances, we have to infer that the opposite party had furnished the original certificate of insurance and it’s Xerox copy is produced. Hence, firstly, the allegation of the complainant that the opposite party did not furnish. Certificate copy of insurance, is not correct. Further it is relevant to note that, though the complainant in the complaint has alleged that, the opposite party promised to pay Rs.3,00,000/- within 3 years, in the copy of the certificate of insurance there is mentioned premium for 5 years. Also there is mention one time admission fees for 5 years. In the complaint, the complainant has alleged that, he has paid 2-3 installments/premiums. To substantiate this fact, there is no evidence. Even that is not stated in the affidavit by the complainant. It is relevant to note that, the facts stated in the affidavit are not consistent with the facts alleged in the complaint. Also it is important to note that, in the affidavit, the complainant has stated that, he rejected the offer made by the opposite party. Hence, when the complainant has rejected the offer made by the opposite party, there is no contract between the parties. In fact, in the affidavit, the complainant himself has stated that, he has not entered into any kind on contract with the respondent. When there is no contract between the parties, let it be of insurance contract or otherwise, no liability can be fastened on the opposite party. In the complaint, as noted above complainant has alleged, he paid 2-3 premiums, but that is not stated in the affidavit and in the affidavit it is stated that offer was that, the complainant to remit the amount only once. <br /> <br /> 8. Further allegation of the complainant is that the opposite party has cheated. If there is any cheating that aspect can not be decided by this Forum.<br /> <br /> 9. From the notice sent by the opposite party to the complainant it can be seen that, for having retained and used credit the card by the complainant, the amount due has been called upon by the opposite party from the complainant. That is not the specific grievance of the complainant that, it is illegal etc.,. As noted above, the grievance of the complainant is insurance policy amount. But as noted above, when the complainant himself has stated that there is no written contract and that he rejected the offer made by the opposite party, the complainant is not entitled for any amount. Incidentally, also it may be noted that, on the Xerox copy of the certificate of insurance, name of the nominee and the signature of the card holder, that is the complainant, are blank. Hence, as stated by the complainant himself he has not accepted the offer made by the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 10. Considering the facts and the material on record, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party is established. Accordingly, our finding on the point is in negative.<br /> <br /> 11. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order.<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER <br /> 1. The complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. There is no order as to cost.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 2nd March 2010)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br />