Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order :  15.09.2015

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To Direct the respondent to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- for the inconvenience ( Financial Mental and Physical ).

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. An insurance agent from Bajaj Allianz Mrs. Ambalika Shankar induced and convinced about the benefits of investment in Bajaj Allianz. She periodically visited the office of the complainant and induced the complainant for investment any how.
2. The complainant is already holding more than ten insurance policies of different insurance companies without being defaulter so, he first denied for investment in any new policy but the agent under her fraud modus operandi received a cheque no. 170021 of Rs. 25,000/- ( Rs. Twenty five Thousand only ) dated 31.12.2007, issued from State Bank of India, Anandpuri Branch, boring Canal Road, Patna.
3. After receiving the cheque the agent never visited to complainant for giving him any document like receipt of payment, Bond or any paper regarding insurance.
4. Due to busy schedule the complainant could not made any physical visit to the office of Bajaj Allianz although he made many calls to all the concerned office but simply ignored by the Insurance company. Finally he visited to the office Bajaj Allianz in the month of April 2008 ( after 4 months of payment ) at Exhibition Road, Patna and lodged his complaint to Manager Mr. Manu Mr. Manager assured the complainant to take serious steps against the agent. Any how the manager managed the payment receipt and requested the complainant to visit any next working day to collect the Bond. ( Vide Annexure – 1 )
5. The complainant visited three times for receiving the Bond against the given amount for the said policy. But every times he was refused by different excuses of the officer at the office. Finally the company did the formalities by issuing a bond which was not stamped and signed by the issuing authority in form of few downloaded papers from computer and gave to the complainant after stapling it on 30.05.2008.
6. The complainant refused to receive those papers and returned back with an assurance by the Branch Manager that he will arrange the original papers very shortly. Although the complainant gave the authority a written complaint same day with a demand of his deposited amount. ( Vide Annexure – 2 )
7. One man from the insurance company came to the office of the complainant after few months in his absence at office and gave the bond of the said policy to his staff. Unfortunately this was nothing except the same which the complainant had refused to receive so the complainant returned that in the office by his physical presence and lodged again a reminder for Bond or return of money. In this way sixteen months has been passed but the Bajaj Allianz Company could not send the original bond although in this period the complainant was in touch with all the authorities by phone and requested to different officer of insurance company on their following number.

1. Mr. Santosh (Manager) 9334141899 by phone no. 93341401323
2. Mr. Shahsi (Manager) 9431887322 by phone no. 9431878432
3. Mr. gaurav (Asst. Manager) 9334065789 by phone no. 93341401323
4. Mr. Arpan (Operational Manager) 9334633882 by phone no. 93341401323
5. Mr. Manu (Branch Manager) 0612 – 6550170 by phone no. 93341401323

8. The complainant visited more than 20 times to the office of the Bajaj Allianz for the same purpose but every time they ignored the complainant by different excuses.
9. At last the complainant decided to stop the policy and applied in written to discontinue the policy. ( Vide Annexure – 3 )
10. After getting no response from Bajaj Allianz the complainant again lodged the complain on 16.12.2010 in his office but still no reply could to complainant. ( Vied Annexure – 4 )

Ground for claim

11. The complainant made cheque payment for the policy to Ambalika Shankar STD Code – 1100065554 on 31.12.2007. But she could not gave any receiving against the payment and the company harassed unnecessarily.
12. As per the plan explained by the agent the locking period for the policy was for three years which is already passed but still the complainant could not received the Bond but getting SMS from the company for depositing the due amount for the policy no. 0081106676.
13. The complainant had given amount for Life Insurance. In case of any causality of happened during this span of three years how the claim was made / sought.
14. The agent who had received the amount was although working for Bajaj Allianz. But the insurance company appointed her without doing any formalities in support of her identity, postal verification as well as guarantor. This came in light when the complainant asked about that agent no one could reply about her. This shows the fraud attitude of company to cheat the innocent customers.
15. The Bajaj Allianz Company caused a great loss to the complainant within a span of four years through his cheating attitude and by appointing such fraud agents.

3. The Opposite Parties in their written statement has submitted as follows :-

1. The instant case is not maintainable before this learned Forum either in law or in fact.
2. The present case is barred by principle of estoppels and waiver.
3. The present complaint is barred by limitation and the complainant has not filed any petition for condonation of delay.
4. The present case is not maintainable due to non – rejoinder of necessary parties and mis – joinder of parties. The answering opposite parties are senior officers of M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd., who perform their duty with full devotion for and on behalf of the company. The company has not been made party in the instant case which is a legal person within the provision of the Companies Act, which can use and be used in its own name. The complainant has made allegations on an agent but the alleged agent has not been made party in the instant case.
5. The opposite parties states that the complaint of the complainant is based on misconceived and baseless facts and is fit to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties.
6. The opposite parties state that the complainant has preferred the complaint for payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation from the opposite parties for no fault or letches on the part of the opposite parties.
7. The statements made in the complaint petition are false and concocted. The allegations made against the agent are to be replied by the alleged agent and the answering opposite parties are not authorized to say anything on her behalf. Such allegations are within the knowledge of the complainant and the alleged agent only.
8. The answering opposite parties state that the allegations made in Paragraph 1, 2 and 5 are on the alleged agent namely Mrs. Ambalika Shankar which can only be replied by her, but the said agent has not been made party in the instant case. It is relevant to state that there is no Paragraph no. 3 and 4 in the complaint petition served upon the opposite parties and as such those Paragraphs, if any, either be supplied to the opposite parties or may not be treated as part of complaint petition and ignored.
9. The opposite parties state that the allegations made in Paragraph no. 6, 7 and 8 are false and concocted except the facts being admitted by the opposite parties that the complainant visited the office of the opposite party no. 2 and the opposite party no. 2 on his complaint handed over a downloaded copy of policy Bond. It had been told to the complainant that if he wishes so, a duplicate policy Bond can be issued to him for which he would have to apply for the same and wait for at least 15 days as duplicate policy bond will be issued by the head office of the opposite parties. The complainant did not give any application for duplicate policy Bond. It is apparent from the Annexure – 2 of the complaint petition that the complainant had made up his mind to discontinue the policy before visiting the office of opposite party no. 2 making false and baseless allegation of non – issuance of money receipt and policy Bond. It is apparent from Annexure – 1 of the complaint petition that the original money receipt was already in the hands of the complainant. The annexure – 1 is photocopy of the ‘ Customer Copy’ and not the office copy or duplicate copy.
10. The opposite parties state that the complainant asked for refund of first premium amount after 5 months which cannot be refunded in full to the complainant in accordance with the Insurance laws and the agreed terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy.
11. The opposite parties deny the allegation and statements made in Paragraph no. 9 and 10 except the fact that the policy Bond had been served upon the complainant in his office/ chamber. The policy Bond is in the form of a computer generated well stitched and covered book, which does not require any signature or stamp rather the letter covering the Bond bears a computerized signature which is valid for all purpose. The allegations of several visits to the office of the opposite parties are false and are hereby denied.
12. It is apparent from Annexure – 2 of the complaint petition and the statement made in paragraph 8 and 9 of the complaint petition itself that the complainant had made up his to discontinue the policy. The annexure – 3 of the complaint petition confirms service of a copy of policy Bond but at the same time it is written in the said annexure that the ‘ policy number – not given’. The annexure – 4 of the complaint petition also bears false and concocted statements. The said annexure have been given by the complainant only for purpose of limitation for filling the instant complaint case. The cause of action, if any had arisen on 31.12.2007 itself and limitation period of 2 years had lapsed on 31.12.2009 and as such with a view to create a document for limitation purpose, letter dated 16.12.2010 had been prepared.
13. The opposite parties state that the ground of claim given by the complainant are baseless and have no leg to stand.
14. The opposite parties state that it is apparent from the statement of the complainant himself in the complaint petition, that the opposite parties had issued receipts and policy Bond immediately on complaint by the complainant. In the ground portion, the complainant discloses the policy number, but in his alleged application dated 16.12.2010, shows that no policy number had been given to him, despite the admission of issuance/ service of copies of policy Bond twice to the complainant.
15. It is admitted by the complainant that he did not deposited further premiums ( after first premium ) despite reminder through SMS and allowed the policy to be lapsed. Considering the request of the complainant and as the policy had been lapsed, the policy was foreclosed and a sum of Rs. 16,897/- had been paid to the complainant on 08.01.2013 vide cheque no. 283143. This fact has not been brought on record of the case by the complainant.
16. The opposite parties submit that foreclosure amount of Rs. 16,897/- has been paid to the complainant and the complainant has received the same without any protest. The claim may be treated as settled and the case be dropped as no merit and settled.
17. The opposite parties submits that the points not raised in the pleading i.e., the complaint petition, cannot be raised at the time of hearing, nor any evidence other that the annexure copies of which has been served to the answering opposite parties, can be entertained by a court of law.
18. The prayer for payment of compensation tentatively for the inconvenience ( Financial, mental and physical ) is unwarranted and without any basis, which is fit to be rejected. There is no deficiency on the part of the answering opposite parties and as such question of award of any compensation does not arise. Rather, it is the complainant who failed to run the policy even for three years. It is submitted that the answering opposite parties are senior officers of a reputed company namely, M/s Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and the instant case has been filed with a view to abase the reputation of the company and also for illegal gain.
19. The answering opposite parties reserved their right to file supplementary written statement.
20. The relief prayed by the complainant in the complaint petition are misconceived and fit to be rejected by this forum in the facts and circumstances of the case. The complaint is, rather fit to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties.
21. The answering opposite parties state and submit that the instant case has no merit and as such, is fit to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties.

We have gone through the judicial record of the case heard the parties on 13.11.2014.

It is the case of the complainant that an agent of Bajaj Allianz Mrs. Ambalika Shankar induced him to take policy of Bajaj Allianz by visiting his office and as such he issued a cheque of Rs. 25,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only ) on 31.12.2007 and given to the said agent. Thereafter the complainant tries several times for original policy Bond of the policy but he was served upon a downloaded copy of the said policy and lastly he was forced to inform opposite parties Vide Annexure – 3 that he wants to discontinue the policy. After several request no one took any pain to return the amount after foreclosure of the aforesaid policy. Opposite parties filed written statement arising question such as the question of limitation etc. and denied the statement made by the complainant in Para – 6, 7, 8 and 11 and 12 of the complaint petition.

However in Para – 16 and 17 of the written statement it has been stated that considering the request of the complainant foreclosure of his policy, the policy has been foreclosed and a sum of Rs. 16,897/- ( Rs. Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Seven only ) had been paid to the complainant on 08.01.2013 Vide cheque no. 283143. In Para – 17 of the written statement the opposite parties have asserted as follows:

“ The opposite parties submit that foreclosure amount of Rs. 16,897/- ( Rs. Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Seven only ) has been paid to the complainant and the complainant has received the same without any protest. The claim may be treated as settled and the case be dropped as no merit and settled ”.

It is worth mention that an affidavit has been filed by the complainant himself on 12.02.2015 the copy of which was also given to the opposite parties. In Para – 1 of this affidavit ( which appears to be sworn on 05.12.2014 ) the complainant has stated as follows:

“ I am the sole petitioner of Consumer Complaint case no. 27/2011 and do confirm that I didn’t receive single coin from the Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Company either by cheque or cash. Although I had paid the premium on 31.12.2007 through cheque no. 17021 drawn from State Bank of India, Anandpuri Branch, Patna – 1 ”.

As the opposite party has not replied this fact asserted in Para – 1 of the affidavit dated 05.12.2014 filed by the complainant, hence we are in difficulty to reject the fact asserted by the complainant in this affidavit because this affidavit has been filed after the filling of written statement by the opposite party.

It is needless to say that the opposite party in Para – 3 and 4 of his written statement have asserted that Vide Annexure – 1 the complainant has received Rs. 16,897/- ( Rs. Sixteen thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Seven only ) but from bare perusal of the Annexure – 1 filed in support of the fact asserted by opposite party in Para – 3 and 4 of their written statement it is crystal clear that this Annexure ( Page – 10 of the written statement ) does not bears the signature or any mark etc. which could prove that the aforesaid document as well as Rs. 16,897/- ( Rs. Sixteen thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Seven only )was received by the complainant.

The opposite party were given opportunity to counter the fact mentioned in the affidavit dated 05.12.2014 but they do not choose to avail the opportunity.

Hence We think it proper to accept the fact asserted Vide Affidavit dated 05.12.2014 by the complainant that the complainant has not received the amount mentioned in the written statement.

From the discussion made above We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs. 16,897/- ( Rs. Sixteen Thousand Eight Hundred Ninety Seven only ) to the complainant with interest @ 10% per annum within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of or certified copy of this order failing which the interest rate will be 12% ( twelve ) per annum till its final payment is made.

We further directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs. 3,000/- ( Rs. Three Thousand only ) to the complainant as composite charge for compensation and litigation within the aforesaid period of two months.

Accordingly, this case stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

                                        Member                                                                   President