This is a case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

     Brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, the complainant had purchased a Term Policy from O.P. No. 1, being Term Insurance Policy No. C128124305 on 29.03.2017, having premium of Rs. 1272/- (Rupees One Thousand Two Hundred Seventy-Two Only) monthly. The complainant had been paying premiums regularly till 29.11.2018 and thereafter, the complainant could not pay the premium amount for certain period, following which the complainant made queries from the O.P. No. 2, who in turn asked the complainant, to deposit the same to his account, so that the O.P. No. 2 could deposit the same in the account of the complainant’s Term Policy No. C128124305. The complainant in good faith then deposited a sum of Rs.12500/- (Rupees Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Only), in cash to the account of the O.P. No. 2 on 05.03.2019 and 06.03.2019, for making payment of the due premiums along with other charges. But the O.P. No. 2 did not deposit premiums due, in the account of the complainant and stated that the amount received from the complainant was a loan and would return it. The complainant insisted that the O.P. No. 2, instead of the returning deposit the same towards his policy account.

            Thereafter, the complainant could gather that the O.P. No. 2 had not paid any amount towards the premium of the complainant’s policy from December 2018 till March 2019 and the complainant asked the O.P. No. 2, to return the said amount to him, so, that he could pay the premiums of the policy himself. The O.P. No. 2, then issued a HDFC Cheque dt. 12.04.2019 for Rs. 12,000/- (Twelve Thousand Only), but the said cheque was dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds.

            Thereafter, the complainant requested the O.P. No. 2 on several occasions for the payment of the premiums, but the O.P. No. 2 failed to do so, following which the complainant sent e-mails to the O.P. No. 4 and higher authorities on 24.04.2019, 29.04.2019, 20.05.2019, 24.05.2019 and 03.07.2019, with no result.

            The complainant had purchased the policy with the hope of providing financial security, but the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by the O.Ps., the complainant was subjected to mental agony. Hence the complainant filed this case.

            O.P. Nos. 1,3&4 have entered appearance and filed
Written Version, wherein, they have denied the complaints case and also stated, that the complainant being an ex-employee of the O.P. No. 1 was well aware, that the O.P. No. 2 was not the authorized person to accept the premium amounts and therefore, the transaction between the O.P. No. 2 and the complainant was completely personal in nature. The complainant had simply intermingled the above transaction with the premium payment, to attract provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, on his failure to prosecute the O.P. No. 2, under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act. They therefore, pray for the dismissal of the case.

On the other hand, the O.P. No. 2 did not appear to contest the case and therefore, the case was taken up for ex-parte hearing against him.

From the arguments advanced before us and the evidence-on-record, the complainant’s case is that, as because he had paid Rs. 12,000/- (Twelve Thousand Only) to the O.P. No. 2, on an agreement that, the O.P. No. 2 would repay the premiums of complainant’s Term Policy No. C128124305, from time to time. But, as the O.P. No. 2 did not deposit the premiums in his above mentioned policy, and had returned the amount by cheque, which again had bounced, due to insufficiency of funds and for this reason the complainant had held the O.P. Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4 liable for such non-payment of premiums in his Term Policy bearing no. C128124305, on the ground of vicarious liability. But, from the complainant’s own e-mail communication, Annexure-3 clearly shows, that it was a personal loan which he had advanced to O.P. No. 2 and the same had been repaid to him by cheque, which incidentally had bounced due to insufficiency of funds. He had then proceeded against the O.P. No. 2 for prosecution under the provisions of Section 138 of N.I. Act. Thereafter, in order to attract the provision of the C.P. Act 1986, he had made out a case by intermingling the above sequences of advancement of money with the non-payment of premiums in his Term Policy No. C128124305.

From the Written Version of the O. P’s. it transpires that the complainant was an ex-employee of O.P. No. 1 and therefore, even if the complainant’s case of advancement of loan on the agreement for payment of premiums in Term Policy No. C128124305, is accepted, it would have to be a personal arrangement as the complainant being an ex-employee would have been fully aware, regarding the mode of payment and the place of payment. Moreover, once the O.P. No. 2 returned the loan amount by cheque, and the complainant proceeded to encash the same, the agreement or rather the arrangement, the complainant had with the O.P. No. 2 would have ceased. Therefore, the complainant’s effort to involve the other O.P.s, for such misdemeanor of the O.P. No. 2, to attract the provisions the C.P. Act, 1986, does appear to be a bit imaginary and would not attract the principle of vicarious liability, on the part of O.P.No.1. Therefore, the question of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the O.P. No. 1, 3 & 4 cannot be sustained. As a result, the instant case of the complainant is bound to fail.

It is therefore,

ORDERED

The instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without cost.

Copies of the Judgement be handed over to the parties free of cost.