O R D E R<br /> <br /> M.R. DEVAPPA, PRESIDENT<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 on 4-8-2006 the 2nd opposite party had approached the father of the complainant on behalf of the 1st party and gave detailed information about the various policies of 1st opposite party then complainant’s father agreed to take one such policy accordingly he paid a sum of Rs.50,000/- in cash to O.P 2, being the single premium policy to be issued by the 1st opposite party in the name of Master C.R. Appanna and the 2nd opposite party assured that he would directly pay the said amount to the 1st opposite party, believing that the complainant’s father paid Rs.50,000/- in cash to 2nd opposite party on behalf of 1st opposite party and later on 27-8-2006 a policy bond was issued by 3rd opposite party. The policy was for life assured in the name of the complainant vide policy No.0024827653.<br /> <br /> 5. That the complainant’s father believed bonafidely that single premium of policy amount has been paid to the 3rd opposite party by OP 2.<br /> <br /> 6. However on 15-6-2008 a public notice was published in the 9th page of Shakthi Daily News Paper of Kodagu District wherein the 1st opposite party has mentioned that the 2nd opposite party has not been service of the 1st opposite party with effect from 3-5-2007.<br /> <br /> 7. That the complainant’s father on seeing the publication rushed to the office of 1st opposite party at Virajpet and showed the original policy issued by the 3rd opposite party. To his shock and surprise he was informed by the 1st opposite party that the said policy form and bond were fake documents and there is no such policy number.<br /> <br /> 8. That the proposed form dated 4-8-2006 contained the name of 2nd opposite party as Sales Manager. Apart from this the 2nd opposite party has received the money on behalf of other opposite party and issued a policy bond.<br /> <br /> 9. That the 1st opposite party has published a publication about the discontinuation of 2nd opposite party in the company after lapse of one year from the date the policy bond was issued. <br /> <br /> 10. That the 1st and 3rd opposite party being the employers of the 2nd opposite party are liable for all the commitments, transactions and acknowledgement and including the receipt of money by him, as they are vicariously liable for the act of their employee namely 2nd opposite party.<br /> <br /> 11. That on 30-6-2008 the 1st opposite party has filed a complaint against the 2nd opposite party with the Virajpet Town Police and the police have registered a case u/sec 420 IPC in their crime No.85/2008. <br /> <br /> 12. That it is prayed that this Forum may be pleased to pass an order ordering the opposite party ;<br /> <br /> 1) To issue a New policy bond for Rs.50,000/- in the name of life assured on minor son Master C.R. Appanna on the same terms and conditions.<br /> OR<br /> 2) Return the said sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate if 12% p.a. from 4-8-2006 till realization with costs of this complaint.<br /> <br /> 3) With such other relief/s as deemed fit.<br /> <br /> 13. Upon admitting the complaint notice was ordered to be issued to OP 1 to 3. O.P 1 and 3 appeared through their counsel but the notice sent to O.P 2 is returned with an endorsement “party left returned to sender”. Hence, the complainant was asked to take steps in the respect of O.P 2. Since O.P 2 could not be served with notice the complainant filed an application seeking permission to publish the notice for information to O.P 2 for his appearance before the Forum and the complainant was permitted accordingly appearance notice was published in the local news paper and the local paper copy was filed before the Forum and thought the opposite party no.2 was supposed to appear on 18-12-2008 but remained absent and therefore he was placed exparte. <br /> <br /> 14. O.P 1 and 3 have not been attending the Forum as well as their advocate. No version and the affidavit of OP 1 and 3 is filed.<br /> <br /> 15. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence in lieu of examination in chief apart from filing following documents;<br /> <br /> 1. Insurance policy of Bajaj Allianz<br /> 2. Declaration<br /> 3. Premium receipt 21-8-2008<br /> 4. Premium receipt 29-3-2008<br /> 5. Bank accounts<br /> 6. Details of sales Manager<br /> 7. Legal notice dated 12-7-2008 with receipts<br /> 8. Paper publication<br /> 9. FIR (Xerox copy)<br /> <br /> 16. The following issues arise for determination;<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the opposite party no.1 to 3 have committed deficiency in service ?<br /> <br /> 2. To what order?<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> 17. O.P 1 and 3 have been served with version notice but neither their advocate nor they have been attending the Forum. They have failed to file their version and their affidavit and no defence is taken by them. Contrarily the complainant has filed the policy issued by the opposite parties and the letter from branch Manger dated 23-6-2008, the legal notice dated 22-7-2008, the paper publication in support of his case and also the father of minor son Appanna has filed his affidavit.<br /> <br /> 18. As averred in the complaint the complainant believed the assurance given by the opposite party no.2 as the Sales Manager of O.P 1 and 3 and paid Rs.50,000/- in cashs believing that the opposite party no.2 would pay the cash directly to O.P. 1 and 2 and later the opposite aprty no.1 and 3 have sent the policy in the name of Master C.R. Appanna. When the complainant has received the policy bond he kept quite and later when public notice was published in Shakthi Paper; the same was noticed by his father, to the effect that the 2nd opposite party has not been in service of the 1st opposite party with effect from 3-5-2007. The father of the complainant immediately rushed to the office of 1st opposite party at Virajpet and showed the original policy issued by the 3rd opposite party and then only he came to know that the said policy form and bond were fake documents and there is no such policy number. <br /> <br /> 19. It is very pertinent to note that in the proposed form dated 4-8-2008 the name of the 2nd opposite party was shown as Sales Manager besides the 2nd opposite party has received the money on behalf of other opposite party and issued a policy bond on seeing the publication only. He came to know that 2nd opposite party has not been in service with OP 1 and 3. When the complainant’s father approached the 1st opposite party at Virajpet, then only the father of the complainant came to know all these misdeeds and to the surprise of the complainant after almost a gap of one year the 1st opposite party has ventured to publish about the discontinuance of the service of 2nd opposite party with 1st opposite party in the news paper.<br /> <br /> 20. As rightly urged by the complainant the 1st and 3rd opposite party being the employers of the 2nd opposite party are vicariously liable for all the commitments transactions and acknowledgements including the receipt of the money by the opposite party no.2. On seeing the proposed form which contained that the opposite party no.2 is working as the Sales Manager and on the assurance given by the opposite party no.2 the complainant through his father paid Rs.50,000/- cash to the 2nd opposite party. The complainant having acted upon the representation made by opposite party no.2, representing OP 1 and 3 and on seeing his name as the Sales Manager of opposite party no.1 paid Rs.50,000/- to O.P 2 and also received the policy bond and therefore the complainant and his father did not entertain any doubt about the bonafide of the status of O.P 2, but to their surprise they came to know the policy bond received by them is fake one for which they cannot be held responsible and opposite party no.1 and 3 they could have taken reasonable care are caution in making the public known about O.P. 2, as early as possible and it is very pertinent to note that the 1st opposite party has kept quite for one year to publish the fact that O.P 2 is not continuing in the service in their company as Sales Manager. <br /> <br /> 21. However the opposite party no.1 has lodged the complaint with police alleging that the opposite party no.2 has cheated the public, upon which the police have registered a case in Crime No.85/2008 u/sec 420 IPC which virtually has substantiated and corroborated the stand taken by the complainant in this case.<br /> <br /> 22. The opposite party no.1 and 3 cannot shirk the responsibility when they admit that Sri. B.C. Chandrashekar was working with them as Sales Manager at some point of time and for the act done by him they are responsible and they have to issue a new policy bond for Rs.50,000/- in the name of Master C.R. Appanna (complainant)on the same terms and conditions or to return the said sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 4-8-2006 till its full realization and if they desire so to recover the said amount of Rs.50,000/- from O.P 2 by initiating appropriate action against him. It appears that they have opened their eyes when some foul play was noticed and informed them by the complainant’s father. Therefore, we answer point no.1 affirmatively holding that O.P 1 to 3 have committed deficiency of service and accordingly we proceed to pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed and the opposite party no.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to issue new policy bond for Rs.50,000/- in the name of Master C.R. Appanna S/o. B.S. Ramesh, Arvathoklu Village and Post, Virajpet Taluk, on the same terms and conditions on which the earlier policy was issued. Or alternatively to return the said sum of Rs.50,000/- along with interest at the rate of Rs.12% p.a. from 4-6-2006 till its full realization. O.P 1 to 3 are also 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 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 />