This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that on 26-04-2013 the OP1 over telephone No.03330489847 called the complainant from his telephone being No.9832166223 identified himself as an officer of HDFC, Zonal Bank from personal loan reported the complainant to provide loan through an investment by filing Pan Card, Voter Card, one cheque of investment of Rs.30,000/- and other cheque by cancellation for submitting the above requirement of HDFC Standard Life Insurance loan upto Rs.5 lakhs only.
During conversation complainant stated to the OP1 that he is going to New Secretariat Building for an interview and will meet with OP1 at his office and the OP1 stated to the complainant to bring Xerox copies of the Pan Card, Voter ID Card, two copies of pass port size photographs, two cheques one of Rs.30,000/- and another cancelled cheque for getting a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the OP No.1. Accordingly complainant brought all documents and bearing cheque no.796766 of SBI Sanctoria Branch of Asansol, West Bengal. On 27-04-2013 after interview at New Secretariat Building contacted with the complainant over telephone and identified himself as Anish Roy, Business Development Manager of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. who gave him a card from which it was found his status was such and accordingly complainant handed over two cheques of SBI, Sanctoria Branch, Barakar to the OP1 and after receiving the cheque Anish Roy (subsequently known as Sandip Jana), assured the complainant for a loan of Rs.3 lakhs against deposit of Rs.30,000/- by giving a visiting card identifying himself as Anish Roy of HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Ld. but it was a false personification. After that the OP1 over telephone told that cheque of the complainant was bounced which was not returned to the complainant and asked the complainant to pay the cash of Rs.30,000/- in the bank of OP1 at SBI Branch being account No.31512732625 and meanwhile the OP1 sent a policy certificate in the name of the complainant at Radha Bhavan Dishergarh, Kulti Chasa Para, L.MK. New BCCL Colony, Burdwan, West Bengal – 713 324 Dated 16-05-2005 being policy No.1606844.
After getting the document subsequently by day to day as per instruction and direction of the OP1 deposited a total sum of Rs.97,400/- in the SBI A/c. No.31512732625 in the branch of Kumardhubi Branch, Barakar Branch, Asansol Branch and Sanctoria Branch and also as per request of the OP1 gave him cash of Rs.47,000/- in total but the OP1 by taking such a plea did not give any receipt to the complainant for the total sum of cash Rs.47,000/-. OP1 prior to the payment sent the policy certificate to the complainant and complainant had received the said documents without enquiry but deposited the total sum of Rs.97,400/- to the Bank A/c. of the OP1 and also gave the said cash of Rs.47,000/- on different dates. On 14-07-2013 OP1 came to the complainant’s house at Asansol and demanded Rs.2,500/- from the complainant for processing fees stating falsely that the fees required for the loan of Rs.3 lakhs which was sanctioned by the HDFC Bank of Kolkata, Zonal Branch in the name of the complainant.
On 17-07-2013 the OP1 received Rs.2,500/- further from the complainant and after receiving the said sum OP1 stated that within two days the sum of Rs.3 lakhs will be transferred from the HDFC Bank Branch, Kolkata to the complainant’s Bank SBI, Sanctoria Branch but on several occasions since 17-07-2013 complainant tried to contact the OP1 over telephone but there was no response for a long period. On 19-07-2013 complainant came to Kolkata to meet the Manager, HDFC Life Insurance Branch Office, HDFC Sl, Kolkata – 700 001, Menaka Estate Branch, 3, Red Cross Place, Menaka Estate Ground on 1st floor, Kolkata – 700 001 who after patience hearing and going through the Xerox copy of the documents, stated that no money was deposited in respect of the policy No.1606844 and the said policy was not issued by the Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Kolkata but he stated that the policy was issued with the certificate by the agent name M/s. Probus Insurance Broker Limited, under the name of Max Gain Service Pvt. Ltd. so, the complainant was requested to contract with that broker and with that agent. Subsequently, complainant went to the office of OP3 but he was not allowed to enter into the office of the OPs1,2 and 3. Thereafter, complainant went to Hare Street Police Station and submitted a written complaint on 23-04-2013 and after the submission of FIR to the O.C. Hare Street P.S. OP 2 over telephone contacted with the complainant who is the father of OP3 stating that he is sorry for such acts of the OP1 who is an employee of the OP3 in the Kolkata Office and also assured that entire amount received by the OP1 will be returned to the complainant either from the office of Kolkata or by the office of Goregaon, Mumbai. On 31-07-2013 the father of the OP3 Sri Naveen Gangwal, who actually look-after the business in the name of his daughter called the complainant with his document at his office as per instruction of I.O., and on 01-08-2013 at about 11 a.m. complainant went to the Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd. where a meeting was held in presence of the OP3 and his officers where complainant and his wife were present and the father of the OP3 that is the OP2 with his officers, came to the office of the Manager, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Kolkata where in presence of all the men of OP2 and his officers and complainant gave the Xerox copy of the all documents along with the forged documents which were supplied by the OP1.
Subsequently, the father of OP3 and his four Associate Officers of Kolkata of OP2 after going through the documents stated that they will return entire money with interest to the complainant and demanded original documents along with a letter for withdrawal of the complaint from the Hare Street P.S. Father of the OP3 stated in presence of all unless the complaint be withdrawn and all the documents in original are not returned to the OP3 they will not return the entire money of the complainant amounting to Rs.1,44,400/- with interest and if necessary they will spend money for the police of Hare Street P.S. who will tear the complaint of the complainant after receiving the money from the OPs. OP4 stated if after receiving the documents from the complainant by the OP3 or her father the money is not returned to the complainant by the OP3 and his father after receiving the documents and after withdrawal of the complaint who will take the responsibility of the same that was not expressed.
After that the OP3 on behalf of the OPs1 and 2 in presence of their associates and in presence of OP4 and his officers stated the complainant and his wife that they will return the entire money with interest to the complainant to the Office of the OP4 and then they will take the documents and withdrawal letter of complaint dated 23-08-2013 from the complainant to submit the same to OC, Hare Street P.S. but since after none of OPs1,2 and 3 contacted with the complainant for return back of the said money with interest or informed the complainant for returning the money to the complainant.
Practically, complainant required loan for progress of his building urgently and the complainant was unable to do and faces heavy losses by spending a lot of money of Rs.1,44,400/- and in the above circumstances, finding no other alternative complainant has prayed for return of the entire amount and damages, loss and sufferings and also prayed for compensation for mental pain and agony and for deceitful manner of service on the part of the OPs.
On the other hand, OPs1 and 4 by filing written statement submitted that practically complainant approached the broker of the Company, i.e. M/s. Probus Insurance Broker Ltd. and expressed his willingness to avail of a life insurance policy. The said broker furnished details of several policies including terms and conditions thereof and after understanding the same complainant applied for one HDFC Classic Assure Plan. As per the terms, the complainant was required to pay yearly premium at the rate ofRs.30,000/- each for a period of 7 years. The policy period was for 10 years and he duly filled up and signed the application form. After receipt of the written proposal from the said broker along with a cheque bearing no.796766 drawn on SBI Bank for Rs.30,000/- as initial premium the company issued a policy bearing no.16068644 and original policy document was despatched by the company to the complainant’s address on 18-05-2013 but subsequently it transpired that the cheque issued towards first premium was dishonoured as such the subject policy of the complainant was cancelled by the company and the above fact was duly intimated to the broker as well as the complainant. It is further submitted that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the company and, as such, the instant complaint is not maintainable against the Company. Further for all policies sold by a broker, the broker is responsible towards its customers not the insurance company, because a broker acts upon the interest of its customer not for the interest of the insurance company. Further it is submitted that Anish Roy is not Business Development Manager of the Company or he has no right to project himself and company is not aware about the alleged transactions between the complainant and the OP1 and there is no connection with OP1 however it is emphatically denied and disputed that the complainant gave a cheque of Rs.30,000/- on the assurance that he will get a loan of Rs.3,00,000/-.
With reference to all allegation of the complainant same are denied and only admitted that the cheque issued initially was dishonoured and so emphatically the policy had been cancelled and OP never received any such amount for granting any loan or there is no such provision as per insurance policy. Further it is submitted company is not liable for such alleged payment as such there is no any comment but denied all other allegations and submitted that complaint is not maintainable against the present OP, HDFC, Standard Life Insurance Company Ltd. and prayed for dismissal of this case.
But anyhow other OPs never contested the case though notices were duly served upon them and fact remains OPs received the notices but refused ultimately. So, in the circumstances, the case was finally heard ex parte against the OPs2 and 3 and same is heard contested against OPs 1 and 4.
Decision with Reasons
After handling the entire case record including complaint and written version and further considering the argument as advanced by the Ld. Lawyer of both the parties including the materials we have gathered that no doubt the complainant is a very poor fellow and for the purpose of taking loan invariably he was misguided by Anish Roy, Financial Consultant of HDFC Life though OP HDFC Life has denied his status but it is found that his financial consultant acted under HDFC Financial Consultant Code HD-000304A and from the Customer Acknowledgement Copy (Auto Debit Mandate) it is found that on 30-04-2013 against Plan Unemployed SAP said Anish Roy received a sum of Rs.6,200/- on behalf of the HDFC Life in the paper of the HDFC Life for loan processing fees and in the said acknowledgement receipt present complainant’s wife Mita Thakur signed. Further it is already admitted by the OP HDFC Life that OPs1 and 2 are their authorized broker or agent and HDFC Life has tried to convince that if any misrepresentation is made by OPs.1,2 and 3 for that HDFC Life is not liable. So, it is the liability of OPs1,2 and 3 but truth is that for the purpose of taking a loan of Rs.3 lakhs complainant was allured by the present Anish Roy, the OP1. No doubt he is the financial consultant of the HDFC Life and he received entire amount and for loan processing fees he received Rs.6,200/- but anyhow OP4 has discharged their liability by shifting it upon the OPs 1,2 and 3 denying any relationship in between OPs1 and 4 but after considering the material document that the customers acknowledgement against loan processing fee it is found that Anish Roy is no doubt the financial consultant of OP4 and it is undisputed fact that Naveen Gangwal and Astha Gangwal are the proprietor of M/s. Probus Insurnce Broker Ltd. and they are the agent of HDFC Life. Fact remains OPs1,2 and 3 have not appeared before this Forum and have not contested this case but peculiarity is that the HDFC Life issued a policy on the basis of the application form submitted by Company leader Probash Insurance Broker and Consultant named Astha Gangwal having code No.00504494 and it is admitted by the OP4 that policy was issued but subsequently, it was found that cheque as submitted by the OPs2 and 3 was bounced for which the policy was cancelled but anyhow the OP4 has failed to produce any document to show that cheque amount of Rs.30,000/- which placed along with application form for policy was bounced or dishonoured by the banker of the complainant or by the OP. Whatever it may be policy had been cancelled by the OP for non-encashment of the cheque but from the document as produced by the OP4 the HDFC Insurance Company it is proved entire matter was handled by the OPs1,2 and 3. Truth is that OPs 2 and 3 with the help of their financial consultant of OP4 i.e. OP1 allured the complainant and collected all the documents including cheque etc. giving positive assurance that the loan shall be granted in favour of him if one policy is purchased. Truth is that for loan processing Rs.6,200/- was received by the OP1 in a paper of OP4(HDFC Life) for the purpose of deceiving the complainant and fact remains they are the agent or the financial consultant of the OP4 but peculiar factor is that this complainant lodged complaint against OP4, OP4 did not take any action or did not cancel their agency or anything that means there is very good nexus in between the OP4 and other OPs i.e. OPs.1 to 3 and in such a fashion this business is being run by HDFC Life Insurance, HDFC Banking Authority and that is not only example but in many cases villagers are being deprived and deceived by such type of agents or brokers of the OP4. Now, the question is that whether OPs2 and 3 rendered service whether they deposited the amount what they have received from the complainant. In this regard it is found that huge money was received by the OP1 which is evident from the Banking statement of the complainant and truth is that OPs1 to 3 did not care to contest the case knowing fully well that they have no defence as they did such deceitful act and negligent manner of service only to deceive the complainant.
In the light of the above observation and also considering the total episode and the materials we are convinced that the present OPs1 to 3 are liable for repayment of the entire amount which has been received by the OPs1 to 3 and truth is that OPs1 to 3 are nothing but the Sales Manager or Authorized Broking Agent and when they received it then it is the liability of the OP4 also because OP4 deals their business through the broker for which OP cannot be anyway relieved from their liability about their agent’s attitude and conduct. In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that complainant has been able to prove that for the deceitful manner of business run by the OP4 through their agents OP1 and broking agency OPs2 and 3, in fact, directly or indirectly that OP4 has deceived the complainant in so many manner and truth is that there is material document to rely that OP1 assured the complainant that loan shall be granted for which Rs.6,200/- was received as processing fee and being satisfied and getting assurance that loan shall be granted if the complainant purchases that policy but anyhow the policy has been cancelled. In view of the fact we are convinced to hold that complainant has been deceived of the agents OP1 and finally by OP2 and for which we are convinced to hold that complainant is no doubt the consumer of the OP4 and for the deceitful manner and act of the OPs1 to 3 i.e. OP4’s agents and brokers complainant suffered much and even after payment of Rs.6,200/- processing fees he did not get the said loan of Rs.3 lakhs and at the same time his policy has been cancelled for adopting unfair trade practice by their agents OPs1 to 3. So, in the above circumstances, complainant is entitled to get relief against all the OPs, particularly OPs1 to 3 shall have to pay the entire sum what have been received by the OPs1 to 3 on behalf of the OP4 and in default OP4.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP4 with a cost of Rs.5,000/- and same is allowed ex parte against OPs 1 to 3 with a cost of Rs.10,000/- each.
OPs 1 to 3 are hereby directed to pay Rs.1,44,000/- to the complainant and also a compensation of Rs.30,000/- for harassment, causing mental pain and agony and also for deceiving the complainant in such a manner by the OPs1 to 3 and it shall be paid within one month from the date of this order. if the amount cannot be recovered from the OPs1 to 3 in that case OP4 shall have to pay the entire decretal amount to the complainant within two months from the date of this order and this part of order passed against OP4 in view of the fact OPs 1 to 3 acted on behalf of the OP4 as their Sales Manager and Agent so decretal amount must be paid by the OP4 ultimately as per spirit of this order, in default penal action shall be started against them u/s.27 of the C.P. Act, and for non-payment of the decretal amount penal interest at the rate ofRs.200/- shall be assessed till full satisfaction of the decree and if penal interest is collected it shall be deposited to the account of this Forum i.e. “The President, D.C.D.R.F., Kolkata, Unit-II”.
