Orissa

Cuttak

CC/33/2013

Priyatam Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sr. Branch Manager,LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

A K Samal

30 Dec 2017

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

                                                                                    C.C No.33/2013

 

Priyatam Kumar,

At:MI- II 4/1,Housing Board Colony,

Phase-I,At/PO:Chandrasekharpur,

Bhubaneswar.                                                                                     … Complainant.

 

                Vrs.

 

 

                                          

1.        Sr. Branch Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Career Agent’s Branch,

Jyoti Plaza,Mission Road,

Cuttack.

 

2.           The Senior Divisional Manager,

L.I.C of India,Cuttack Division Office,

Jeevan Prakash,Nuapatna,

P.O.Box-36,Cuttack-1,

PIN-753001.                                                                                      … Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,LL.B. President.

Sri Bichitra Nanda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member (W).

 

Date of filing:   19.02.2013

Date of Order: 30.12.2017

 

Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

                The complainant has filed this case having attributed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice to the O.Ps and seeking appropriate relief against them in terms of his prayer in the complaint petition.

1. The facts of the complainant’s case stated in brief are that one Tunananda Swain of the village of the complainant was working as an agent of LIC of India,Cuttack Branch.  His agent code is 00419477.  He persuaded the complainant to have an LIC policy under his agent code.  The complainant agreed to it and then said Tunananda Swain had obtained the signature of the complainant in the proposal form of LIC as well as Rs.50,000/- towards first premium of the said policy. The said premium was paid in shape of demand draft bearing No.498939 dt,17.1.2010 in the name of LIC of India and drawn on his account no.10021154180 maintained with S.B.I,Chandrasekharpur branch.  It was handed over to said Tunananda to do the needful.  Annexure-1 is the copy of the said demand draft enclosed in this case. 
2. After some days when the complainant did not get the insurance bond he visited CAB,Cuttack on 6.7.11 and enquired from Mr. N.N.Choudhury about it.  As per suggestion of Mr. N.N.Choudhury the complainant contacted S.B.I,Cuttack and came to know that his D.D had been collected by Corporation Bank,Bajrakabati Road,Cuttack and the said amount has been deposited in the current account No.977 of CAB,Cuttack on 13.2.10.  Thereafter, the complainant approached O.P.2 to issue a policy bond in his favour but it yielded no result.  On further enquiry he got information from the SBI,Chandrasekharpur Branch,Bhubaneswar that the above draft amounting to Rs.50,000/- favouring LIC of India payable at SBI,Cuttack was purchased by Priyatam Kumar,S.B.Account No.10021154180.  Annexure-2 is copy of the said information supplied by the S.B.I.,Chandrasekharpur branch.  Thereafter on 28.7.11 the complainant issued a letter to O.P.2 and requested him to supply the documents such as first premium receipt, copy of the proposal form and original policy documents to him but the latter did not oblige.  Copy of said letter has been filed and marked as Annexure-3.  The said complaint made by the complainant was registered vide complaint no.1477 dt.1.8.11 by the O.P.2 and the said O.P. told the complainant that this matter was pending with the CAB,Cuttack and it would be settled soon.  Annexure-4 is the copy of the said acknowledgement filed in this case.  Despite the action stated above of the complainant, the O.P.2 neither issued the policy bond to him nor refunded the premium amount of Rs.50,000/- with interest.  Thereafter the complainant made a representation to O.P.2 on 17.8.11 by ventilating his grievances.  On 24.12.11 the O.P.2 intimated the complainant through a letter that the aforesaid D.D has been deposited at LIC of India,CAB.Cuttack through prop.  deposit vide BOC No.6808 dt.9.2.10, Tr. No.86884 in the name of one Surendra Nath Mishra under the Agency Code No.00419477 of Tunananda Swain.  According to him, the policy number has been allotted and issued to said Surendra Nath Mishra and agency of Tunananda Swain in the mean time has been terminated.  Said Tunanda Swain has also changed his address and cell phone number after termination of his agency and his whereabouts is not known to the O.P.2.  Annexure-5 is the copy of the said letter issued to the complainant.
3. On 11.10.12 the complainant again sent a reminder to O.P.2 with the same request but no positive response was received from him.  Subsequently he approached the OMBUDSMAN of LIC,Bhubaneswar for redressal of his grievances but could not get any satisfactory result from the said authority.  Thereafter he filed this case before this authority.
4. It is further stated that the said Tunananda Swain being an agent of LIC of India has committed fraud on the complainant and since there was relationship of Principal and agent between the LIC of India and said Tunananda Swain  the overt act on the part of the said agent is tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and   both  them are jointly and severally liable to compensate the loss caused to the complainant.
5. It is therefore prayed that the O.Ps may be directed to refund Rs.50,000/- together with interest @ 18% per annum from 17.1.10 till the actual date of payment to him as well as to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony and harassment meted out to him by the O.Ps and Rs.5000/- towards cost f litigation in the interest of justice.
6. It is important to leave a mention here that said Tunananda Swain was arrayed as O.P.3 in this case but subsequently when the complainant failed to submit present correct address of O.P.3 in spite of repeated direction from this authority for issuance of notice and to secure his attendance in this case, no action could be taken against him and as such his name was deleted.
7. Both the O.Ps 1 & 2 filed written version of their case on the ground that the present case is not maintainable both in fact and law and there is no cause of action to file such a case.  It is also hit by the principle of waiver, acquisence, estopells and jurisdictional errors.  It is stated that the case was suffering from mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.
8. The subsequent stand of both the O.Ps 1 & 2 is that the complainant is not a consumer and he is completely a stranger to the O.Ps.  There is no valid contract between him and the O.ps in any manner so as to make them liable for the reliefs sought for in this case.
9. It is also specifically stated that action has already been taken against the said Tunananda Swain by the O.Ps and his agency has been terminated.  It is therefore prayed that the present case being devoid of merit may be dismissed in the interest of justice.
10. We have gone through the case record and heard the learned counsels from both the parties at length.  It is an admitted fact that there was relationship of the Principal and Agent between LIC of India and Tunanda Swain.  It is not disputed that said Tunananda Swain managed to obtain a proposal form for initiation of a LIC policy in the name of the complainant together with a D.D of Rs.50,000/- towards deposit of the first premium for obtaining such policy.  But said Tunananda Swain instead of depositing the said draft in the name of the complainant, deposited it in the name of one Surendra Nath Mishra in whose favour policy had been issued.  This is tantamount to gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
11. It is also not disputed that Agency of said Tunananda Swain has been terminated soon after this occurrence by the O.Ps.  But as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the O.Ps that Tunananda Swain is a necessary party to this case and in his absence no effective decree can be drawn.  No counter submission to it has been made by the learned counsel for the complainant.  It is because of the utter failure of the complainant to provide the present correct address of said Tunananda Swain who was initially arrayed as O.P.3, no process could be issued against him and ultimately the case proceeded against the O.Ps 1 & 2 only.  In such an event, it is held that the case suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties and needs to be dismissed.

ORDER

                                                The case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble President in the Open Court on this the 30^th    day of December,2017 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

                                                                                                                                                  

    (   Sri D.C.Barik )

                                                                                                                      President.

                                                             

                                                                                                                  (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                       Member.

 

                                                                                                                   (Smt. Sarmistha Nath)

                           Member(W)