MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MEMBER

            This Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been preferred by the OP challenging the judgment and order dated 30.1.2015 passed ex parte by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar, in Case No. DF-81/2014, directing the OP to pay to the Complainant Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as cost within 45 days from the date of the order, failing which the OP shall deposit with the State Consumer Welfare Fund Rs. 100/- per day of delay.

          Brief facts of the case, as appearing from the materials on records, are that the Respondent/Complainant had a Savings Bank Account (No. 08491050001190) with the Appellant/OP-Bank.  The Petition of Complaint reveals that sometime in March, 2013 a lady ‘Susmita’ by name, from the Kolkata office of ‘HDFC Credit Card’,  informed the Respondent/Complainant that the Respondent/Complainant would be provided with a Credit Card together with a ‘Free Insurance Policy’, for which a representative Mr. Sujit Sarkar by name would visit the Respondent/ Complainant’s home and collect the photocopy of PAN Card from the Respondent/Complainant, and accordingly, the said Mr. Sujit Sarkar visited and handed over a Credit Card (No. 4617863004607584) and collected the photocopy of the PAN card acknowledging the same on another photocopy of the PAN card.  Two to three months after such event an ‘Insurance Policy Kit of HDFC YOUNGSTAR SUPER PREMIUM’ Policy bearing No. 15999304 along with a bill was delivered to the Respondent/Complainant despite the Respondent/ Complainant having not filled in and signed any Application Form for the said insurance policy as averred in the Petition of Complaint.  Then the Respondent/ Complainant lodged a complaint with the Appellant/OP-Bank on 27.9.2013, which was duly acknowledged by the Appellant/OP-Bank under the signature and seal, denying the acts of signing and filling in the Application Form for the said insurance policy.  Receiving no response to the said complaint from the Appellant/OP-Bank, the Respondent/Complainant then lodged further complaint on 20.6.2014 with the Appellant/OP-Bank which was replied by the Appellant/OP-Bank on 19.7.2014 to the effect “HSLIC policy booked in your card is an online policy and same has been processed basis your consent” without adducing any documentary evidence as proof of consent.  The Respondent/ Complainant having thus got no solution to the problem in question moved the complaint concerned before the Ld. District Forum alleging ‘forgery’ against the Appellant/OP-Bank and the Ld. District Forum passed the order in the aforesaid manner.  Aggrieved by such order the OP has preferred the instant Appeal.

          The Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP-Bank submits that the Ld. District Forum passed the order impugned on the basis of assumption and hence, the said order is bad in law.

          The Ld. Advocate continues that no insurance policy is issued against only PAN card unless and until the Application Form for the insurance policy concerned is signed and filled in by the intending policy-holder and in the present case, the concerned policy was issued on consent of the Respondent/Complainant.

          The Ld. Advocate also submits the ‘forgery’ as alleged by the Respondent/ Complainant is not supported by any documentary evidence on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant and hence, the allegation of ‘forgery’ is unfounded.

          The Ld. Advocate further submits that the Respondent/Complainant raised the question only when the bill was raised although it is a known fact that no insurance policy can be issued free of cost as claimed by the Respondent/ Complainant.

          The Ld. Advocate finally submits that in view of the aforesaid submission, the instant Appeal should be allowed and the impugned judgment and order be set aside and the Complaint be dismissed.

          None appears on behalf of the Respondent/Complainant, but the Respondent/Complainant has sent BNA by post, as available on records.  In the said BNA the Respondent/Complainant has reiterated his allegation that the Application Form for the insurance policy in question was neither signed nor filled in by him,  that the Appellant/OP-Bank ‘scanned’ unfairly the signature of the Respondent/Complainant on the Application Form of the insurance policy in question, that thus the Appellant/OP-Bank resorted to unfair trade practice and hence, the judgment and order impugned should be affirmed.

          Heard the Ld. Advocate appearing, considered his submission and perused the materials on records including the BNA as sent by the Respondent/ Complainant by post.

          The materials on records reveal that the Appellant/OP-Bank did not produce either to the Respondent/Complainant or to the Ld. District Forum or to this State Commission the original hardcopy of the duly filled-in and signed Application Form for the insurance policy in question as demanded by the Respondent/Complainant in the Petition of Complaint, implying thereby that the said document was not in possession of the Appellant/OP-Bank.  The observation in the impugned judgment and order also reveals that the Appellant/OP-Bank did not appear before the Ld. District Forum to advance their defence despite due service of Notice upon them, thereby implying that the Appellant/OP-Bank had nothing in their possession to counter the allegation by the Respondent/ Complainant.  The complaint dated 20.6.2014 by the Respondent/Complainant to the Appellant/OP-Bank further reveals that the personal information, particularly the information about the name of the employer-company of the Respondent/ Complainant, his designation and his educational qualification as mentioned in the copy of the Application Form for the insurance policy in question, as filed by the Appellant/OP-Bank along with the Memo of Appeal, do not agree with the real personal information of the Respondent/Complainant about those items, implying thereby that the Application Form for the insurance policy in question was not filled in and signed by the Respondent/Complainant, which is reinforced by the statement of the Appellant/OP-Bank in their reply letter dated 19.7.2014 to the effect “…..HSLIC policy booked in your card is an online policy and same has been processed basis your consent” which points to the preponderance of possibility of scanning of signature as the Respondent/Complainant has alleged in the Petition of Complaint.

          The aforesaid facts, evidence on records and the discussion lead to the conclusion that the impugned judgment and order does not deserve any interference.

          Consequently, the instant Appeal is dismissed, the impugned judgment and order is affirmed.  No order as to costs.