:    J U D G M E N T    :

This consumer complaint No. CC/2012/39 was filed on 30.05.12 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.  The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-

The complainant No. 1 is a married daughter of complainant No. 2, who is a retired person.  Complainants 1 & 2 are engaged in insurance business and OP No. 3 is a corporate agent of OP No. 1 & 2.  Complainant No. 2 invested Rs. 30,000/- in the name of minor Ankit Mukherjee.  OP No. 3 insisted the complainant to invest the said amount in the name of the said minor by purchasing a single premium policy marketed by TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. for which UBI has been nominated as corporate agent to provide hassle-free service.  The complainant gave consent for purchasing the single premium policy of Rs. 32,000/-.  When OP No. 3 called Mr. Deb Shankar, a local agent of OP No. 1 & OP No. 2.  Complainant made payment of Rs. 32000/- by way of transfer from SBI account to UBI, Nazirpur Branch.  Premium deposited slip was signed by OP No. 2 OP No. 3 and Mr. Deb Shankar, agent assured the complainant that the policy documents would come in due course. 

Complainant received policy No. C195833234 in the name of Ankit Mukherjee as minor.  On careful perusal of the policy it was found that it was not a single premium policy rather it was a long term policy requiring payment of premium year to year for as long as 14 years.

In the policy document including the proposal form and declaration the signatures of Gayatri Dutta were forged.  Moreover, several anomalies kept in the policy document.  The policy was nothing but the product of forgery and fraud upon the complainant on the part of the OP No. 1 & 3 and the agent Mr. Deb Shankar of OP No 1 & OP No. 2.  OP No. 3 undertook to refund the entire amount within a month as the matter would involve in the approval of the higher authority of OP No. 1 & 2.  But waiting of the complainants was useless as OP No. 3 did not keep his promise of cancellation of the policy and return of the money on different pretext.  The complainant suffered mental agony for which they should be compensated.   The complainant also prays for bank interest on the invested amount.  A local notice was sent on 18.01.2018 requesting the OPs to cancel the policy and refund the money.  The OP’s reply was that cancellation of policy was not possible.

The OPs filed written version and challenged the contentions of the claimants and on the basis of application the OP issues the policy w.e.f., 12.09.12 for the sum assured of Rs. 3,56,000/-.  In the written version the opposite party challenged the contention of the complaint.  It has been also pleaded that the criminal court has jurisdiction for forgery and not the Forum.  Dismissal of the claim has been prayed.

POINTS FOR DECISION

1. Point No. 1:   Are the complainants consumers?
2. Point No. 2:   Has the agent committed forgery of signatures of Gayatri Dutta?
3. Point No. 3:   What reliefs the complainants are entitled to get?

REASOND DECISIONS

            For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.

            We have meticulously gone through the following documents filed by the complainant.

1. The copy of insurance policy of Gayatri Dutta of TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
2. A copy of Lawyer’s letter to the Manager of TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
3. The copy of reply letter from TATA AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd.
4. Copy of premium deposit receipt in the UBI, Nazirpur Branch
5. Copy of portal receipt.   

We have meticulously gone through the affidavit evidence of both parties.  Perused the order No. 38, dtd. 02.07.14 where the signatures and the 15 original documents were sent to the Director, Question Document Examination Bureau, Bhabani Bhawan, Kolkata.

Perused the report of Sujata Mitra, the examiner of QDEB, CID, West Bengal.  The examiner of the Question Documents has come to the conclusion that  the specimen signatures marked S/1, S/2 and the question signatures marked Q/1 to Q/10 are not written by one of the same person.  Hence, the entire policy becomes void.  Because, the signatures of the Gayatri Dutta was forged.

The master is liable for the fault of the agent.  Hence, for the forgery the policy cannot stand and the master that means OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 are liable to pay back the invested money.

It is admitted that the complainants are the consumers of the OPs. 

Thus, all the points are disposed of accordingly and the case succeeds.

The OP No. 1 and 2 are directed to cancel the policy No. C 195833234 in the name of minor Ankit Mukherjee with form No. LA 1015-10.  The claimants are also entitled to get reliefs on Rs. 32000/- from OP No. 1 & OP No. 2 and compensation. 

Hence,

Ordered,

That, the case CC/2012/39 be and the same is allowed on contest.  The OP No. 1 & 2 are directed to cancel the policy mentioned above and pay Rs. 32,000/- to the complainant No. 2 along with interest @ 5% p.a., w.e.f., 07.09.11.  The OP No. 1 & 2 are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for harassment and mental agony to the complainants within a period of 30 days, in default, the decretal amount will carry a interest @ 9% from that day / 31^st day till the realization of the full amount.    

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.