O R D E R<br /> <br /> M.R. DEVAPPA, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> Briefly stated the case of the complainant is as follows;<br /> <br /> 1. That the complainant is now a minor as such his father is representing him.<br /> <br /> 2. That the 1st opposite party is a branch office of Insurance Company doing insurance business, having its head office at Pune and branches all over India like that they have branch at Virajpet. The 3rd opposite party is the Divisional Manager at Mysore.<br /> <br /> 3. That the 2nd opposite party namely H.C. Chandrashekar was working as a Sales Manager under the 1st opposite party during the year 2006.<br /> <br /> 4. That during the 1st week of June 2007 the 2nd opposite party approached the complainant’s father and explained about the different schemes and policies of Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company Limited. Hence, on 12-6-2007 the father of the complainant paid a sum of Rs.50,000/-to O.P 2 being the yearly premium payable of a policy to be issued in the name of the complainant Master B.R. Sachin and the said amount was received by the 2nd opposite party being its Sales Manager on behalf of the 1st and 3rd opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 5. That the proposal form was also duly filled signed and obtained by the 2nd opposite party and in the said proposal form his name was found as representative of the 1st and 3rd opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 6. That after receiving the policy amount the 3rd opposite party has issued a policy bond vide no.0053610365 which contained all the particulars and the conditions of the policy the said bond was issued by 3rd opposite party. <br /> <br /> 7. That on 3-6-2008 the 2nd opposite party again approach the father of complainant and requested to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- in cash being the yearly installment premium amount of the policy already issued by the opposite parties in the name of the complainant and O.P 2 assured that the amount would be directly paid to the 1st opposite party so that complainant can get the receipt for having paid the same and on the assurance given by O.P 2 the complainant’s father issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.50,000/- on Canara Bank Gonikoppal Branch on 3-6-2008 which was encashed by the 2nd opposite party and the same was acknowledged by the 2nd opposite party in writing.<br /> <br /> 8. But to the utter dismay and shock to complainant on 9-6-2008 he received a telephone call from O.P 3 informing that the policy amount of Smt. B.R. Leela has not been paid. But the husband of Smt. B.R. Leela asserted and told the authorities that the installment has been paid. Under this back ground father of minor child contacted the 1st opposite party and with due discussion he came to know that the 1st installment and 2nd installment of the policy relating to the complainant in this case has not been paid and therefore the complainant’s father lodged a complaint with the opposite party. Thereafter the 1st opposite party took pains in publishing a notice in Shakthi Paper Kodagu on 15-6-2008 informing the public that the 2nd opposite party has not been in service of the company with effect from 3-5-2007.<br /> <br /> 9. That the 2nd opposite party acted and transacted on behalf of the complainant with the 1st and 3rd opposite party. The representation made by O.P 2 that he represented 1st and 3rd opposite party and made the complainant’s father to believe to act upon representation made so. Therefore, the 1st and 3rd opposite parties are vicariously liable and the transactions made on their behalf bind them and if any thing gone wrong the 1st and 3rd opposite party is liable to set-right the same. <br /> <br /> 10. That the 1st and 3rd opposite party have not taken immediate steps in informing the public had they done so the complainant in this case would not have venture to pay the installments directly to O.P 2.<br /> <br /> 11. That the 1st and 3rd opposite party being the employers of the 2nd opposite party are liable for all his commitments and transactions and therefore they are vicariously liable to make good the loss occur to the complainant. The very fact that on 30-6-2008 the 1st opposite party has filed a complaint against the 2nd opposite party confirms that some foul play has been played by 2nd O.P. and therefore the opposite party no.1 and 3 can recover the amount from opposite party no.2. However they cannot escape the liability of to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 3-6-2008 till its realization as the same amount has been paid again in excess by the complainant’s father. Because the opposite party no.1 to 3 have committed deficiency in service by putting the complainant under agony and hardship.<br /> <br /> 12. The complainant has prayed this Forum to pass an order, ordering O.P 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest and the court cost. <br /> <br /> 13. Upon admitting the complaint O.P 1 and 3 were sent with version notice and thereafter O.P 1 and 3 appeared through their advocate and O.P 2 remained absent and the notice was returned stating that “party left returned to sender” and there after paper publication was made in respect of O.P 2 for his appearance even then he remained absent and therefore he was placed exparte. Neither O.P 1 nor O.P 3 nor even their advocates appeared before the Forum in subsequent hearings nor even their version and affidavit filed. Hence, no defence has been put forward by them.<br /> <br /> 14. The following issues arise for determination;<br /> <br /> 1. Whether O.P 1 to 3 have committed deficiency in service on their part?<br /> <br /> 2. To what order?<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> 15. In view of the fact that no defence is taken by O.P 1 to 3 and the complainant’s father has filed his affidavit narrating the circumstances under which the representation made by opposite party as Sales Manager of O.P 1 and 3 the complainant’s father was made to pay Rs.50,000/- towards the premium of the policy believing that the opposite party no.2 would pay the said cash to O.P 1 and 3 after the proposal form was duly filled, signed by 2nd opposite party and O.P 2 being the representative of O.P 1 and 3 have received the said amount. Therefore, the opposite party no.1 and 3 are vicariously liable for the acts done by his employee and as such they cannot escape the liability. <br /> <br /> 16. The complainant’s father again when approached by O.P 2 for renewal of the policy has issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.50,000/- drawn on Canara Bank Gonikoppal Branch dated 3-6-2008 which was encahsed by O.P 2 for which O.P 2 has acknowledge the same in writing. As stated in previous paragraphs the records made available disclose that the complainant has paid in excess the amount of rupees fifty thousand when he received a telephone call from Mysore informing that the amount paid by the complainant has not been paid to the company and being disappointed and unhappy with the developments the complainant’s father lodged a petition with the opposite party no.1 explaining as to how he has been cheated by O.P 2 and thereafter only the opposite party noo.1 published in the news paper informing the public that O.P 2 has not been in service with the opposite party no.1 and 3.<br /> <br /> 17. The opposite party no.1 and 3 have kept quite for nearly one year three months after O.P 2 ceased to be their employee and they made the complainant to pay again Rs.50,000/-. The above events and the documents placed before us would clearly demonstrate that O.P 1 to 3 have committed deficiency in service on their behalf and therefore we answer point no.1 positively and affirmatively and proceed to pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed and opposite party no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.50,000/- to the father of the complainant; Ramesh and they are directed to pay the same to him with interest at 12% p.a. from 3-6-2008 till its full realization and they are further directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of this proceedings to the complainant since they are ordered to pay the interest no compensation is ordered to be awarded.<br /> <br /> The above order shall be complied by the opposite party within sixty days from the date of the order.<br /> <br /> Communicate the order to the parties. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the open Forum on this 09th day of January 2009.<br /> <br /> <br /> (M.R. DEVAPPA), (K.S. PRASAD), (A.S. HEMALATHA),<br /> PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />