1. The fact of the case of complainant is that as per personal approach of O.P. No.1 for single premium policy, he purchased one policy named TATA AIA Life Guaranteed Return Plan on 20.06.2020 vide policy no. C247945258 and paid premium of Rs. 73,150/- through the O.P. No.2 having being having his saving account with him.  It is alleged that after deposit of the 3 months of deposit of the premium, he received the policy bond on September, 2020 and surprised to know that the said policy was not as per her wish and assurance given by the O.P. No. 1 whereas the said policy was issued for 20 years premium paying term, for which he contacted with the O.P. No. 1 & 2 who on reply suggested her to submit the required document for cancellation of the said policy, but no action taken by them.  It is further alleged that on January 2021 while she contacted with the O.P. No. 1 & 2 but was suggested to contact with the O.P. No.3, but no action also taken by the O.P. No.3 and in this regard several efforts of complainant got in vein.  Thus showing deficiency in service, complainant filed this case with a prayer to direct the O.Ps to refund the entire deposited amount with interest and Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation and costs of litigation.
    
2. The O.P. No. 1 & 2 appeared in this case and filed their common counter version admitting their agentship under the O.P. No.3 but denied the allegations of the complainant contending that since there is no privity of contract between the complainant and O.P. No.1 & 2 and the subject matter of the dispute is related only to the insurance, and they are being into the banking business, hence showing their no liability and with contentions, they prayed to dismiss the case.
    
3. The O.P. No.3 appeared through their Ld. Counsel, filed their counter version admitting the sale of alleged insurance policy to the complainant for premium paying term of 10 years and policy term of 20 years for premium of Rs. 73,150/- but denied the allegations of complainant contending that before selling the alleged policy, they have conducted a Pre Submission call and explained the details of the alleged policy to the complainant and after she agreed, they have issued the policy.  It is also contended that since there is an option of free look period, the complainant could have availed such service for cancellation of such policy but has raised her dispute on September, 2020 after 3 months when the policy documents has been credited to eIA account on 26.06.2020.  And with other contentions, showing their no liabilities, they prayed to dismiss the case against them.
    
4. Parties have filed their respective documents in support of their submissions and contentions.  Heard from the complainant and A/R of O.Ps. No. 1 & 2 and 3.  Perused the case record and material documents available therein.
    
5. From the documents and submissions of parties, it is ascertained that issue of alleged insurance policy in favour of the complainant is an admitted fact.  The allegation of complainant is though the O.P. No.1 being the employee of O.P. No.2 and on behalf of O.P. No. 3 has assured the alleged insurance policy is of single premium but the same is meant for 20 years term and premium paying term is of 10 years and he has received the alleged policy bond after 3 months and approached the O.P. No. 1 & 2 for its cancellation, but did not yield any result.  Whereas the only contention of O.P. No.1 & 2 is that they are into the banking business and the subject matter is related only to insurance, hence they have no liabilities.  Whereas the contention of O.P. No.3 is that since there is free look option, the complainant can apply for cancellation within the free look period.  But neither O.Ps have challenged the versions of the complainant regarding that she has received the alleged insurance policy bond after 3 months from the date of issue and within seven days from the date of receipt, she has applied for the cancellation of the insurance policy to the O.P. No.1 & 2, for which the said version of complainant remained unchallenged and unrebuttal.Further the neither O.Ps have raised any single point in the counter version stating that the complainant has not approached them for cancellation at any time, for which, it is clearly evident that the immediate after receipt of the alleged policy bond, complainant approached the O.P. No. 1 & 2 for cancellation of insurance policy and also submitted all relevant documents.In this connection, we have fortified with by the Judgement of Hon’ble National Commission in the case between Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner, Rajasthan Vrs Babu Lal and Another wherein Hon’ble National Commission has held that “Unrebutted averments shall be deemed to be admitted.”    

6. Further from the counter of O.P. No.1 & 2, it is ascertained that the O.P. No. 2 has admitted that they are the agent of O.P. No.3 and O.P. No.1 is their employee, hence it is the prime duty of the O.P. No.1 & 2 to intimate the O.P. No.3 regarding the cancellation of the alleged insurance policy whenever they have received the documents from the complainant for such cancellation, but forgetting their duties to provide better service, they kept silent, which resulted this dispute.

7. Further it is seen that on many instances that only due to the improper services of the agent, the insurance companies are suffering heavily on socially and financially and to increase their business volume and commissions, generally agents follow wrong procedure to motivate the customers by forgetting their duties to provide services. And in the instant case also the same is happened.  Further it is well settled of law that for any act of agent, the company is solely liable to for any sufferings and loss.  
    
8. Further as per submissions of complainant and the material documents, it is observed that the complainant has tried her level best to get back her deposited premium from the O.Ps., but failed, for which she was compelled to file this case to seek proper reliefs, as such she is also entitled for some compensation and cost.  Considering her suffering, we feel Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation will meet the end of justice.  Hence this order.

                                                                                                                            ORDER

The complaint petition is allowed in part.  The O.P. No. 3 being the insurer of alleged policy is herewith directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs. 73,150/- to the complainant with prevailing bank interest from 20.06.2020 till filing of the case alongwith Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and physical harassment and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which, the deposited amount shall carry interest @ 10% p.a. from the 20.06.2020 till payment. 

Pronounced in the open Court on this the 25^th day of May, 2021.

Issue free copy to the parties concerned.