Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Aggrieved with the decision of the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-II (Central) which has allowed the complaint case, this Appeal is moved by M/s Exide Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (formerly known as ING Vysya Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

The grievance as articulated by the Complainant in his petition of complaint, shortly stated, is that, as per the assurance of the OP No. 4 of getting a sum of Rs. 1,45,000/- after 3 years against deposit of a sum of Rs. 99,000/-, he issued necessary cheques in favour of the OP Insurance Company to facilitate issuance of a single premium paying policy.  Thereafter, sometimes in the month of September, 2012, he wrote a letter to the OP Insurer expressing his desire to surrender the said policy.  However, the OP Insurance Company vide its letter dated 26-09-2012 turned down his request.  Thereafter, in the month of March, 2013, he made similar plea against which, the OPs paid a paltry sum of Rs. 28,815/-.  Aggrieved with such unsatisfactory settlement of his claim, the instant complaint case was filed.

It appears from the impugned order that notice of the complaint case was duly served upon the Appellants on 14-08-2014; however, they did not contest the case.  Thus, the case was decided ex parte.

Decision with reasons

It appears from the record that, on notice, Respondent No. 1 turned up through his Ld. Advocates.  However, subsequently no one appeared on behalf of the Respondent No. 1.  Accordingly, the Appeal was heard ex parte.

It is essentially a dispute regarding alleged mis-selling of an insurance policy by the Respondent No. 2 to the Respondent No. 1.

In support of his contention, the Respondent No. 1, it seems, furnished before the Ld. District Forum, a purported undertaking given by the Respondent No. 2 to the Respondent No. 1 in respect of the subject policy.  However, at the time of hearing, Ld. Advocate for the Appellants disowned the Respondent No. 2 being their employee.

It is, however, not understood; when the Respondent No. 1 vide his letter dated 31-03-2011 explained everything to the Appellants, why it did not refute the allegations hurled against the Respondent no. 2 and kept mum for long. 

Further, in the proposal form, annual income of the proposer, i.e., the Respondent No. 1 was shown as Rs. 12,00,000/-.  However, no income proof document is placed on record based on which the policy of such substantial premium was issued. 

That apart, though the Ld. Advocate for the Appellants denied that the Respondent No. 2 happened to be their employee, no authenticated copy of salary register or other such document of the concerned office for the relevant period is filed to substantiate such claim. 

We have also noticed from the purported copy of visiting card that the company created a personal email in the name of the Respondent No. 2.  If indeed the Respondent No. 2 was not associated with the Appellants, one wonders, what prompted the company to open the email ID in his name. Significantly, no such claim has been made by the Appellant that it was a fake email ID.

Also, intrigue is the fact that the Respondent no. 1 paid only one premium in respect of the subject policy.  If indeed his annual income was Rs. 12,00,000/- or if indeed he voluntarily opted for the same, he would certainly not refrain from paying further premiums in respect of the said policy.

Lastly, it is hardly believable that one would unnecessarily print a false visiting card. 

Considering the entire circumstantial evidence, we are not at all convinced that Respondent No. 2 was not associated with the Appellant Company.  Rather, there is every reason to believe that the Respondent No. 2 acted mala fidely to fulfill his business target. Accordingly, the Appellants cannot avoid their vicarious liability.

The instant complaint case was rightly allowed by the Ld. District Forum.  However, the penal interest, as ordered by the Ld. District Forum appears to be too harsh.  Accordingly, the same is hereby struck off.

The Appeal, accordingly, succeeds in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed ex parte against the Respondent No. 1 in part.  The impugned order is modified to the extent that the Appellants need not pay any penal interest.