Date of Filing: 20.06.2016 Date of Final Order: 09.08.2017
Smt. Runa Ganguly, Member.
On proper study of the complaint as filed by Sri Satyanarayan Derasari U/S 12 of C.P. Act against Pan Card Clubs Ltd., it reveals that the Complainant deposited Rs.1500/- per month to Pan Card Clubs Limited in Devine Holiday Scheme against Folio No.COO/D-4579. The O.P. issued a receipt No.5927136 on 13.10.2009 for 5 years 6 months. After maturity of the said scheme the O.P. issued a cheque bearing No. 396503 for Rs. 76,695/- dated 12.02.2016 in favour of the Complainant but the said cheque bounced and the Complainant did not get the maturity amount. The Complainant knocked the door of the O.P. Company on several occasion with a desire to get back her insured amount but all efforts were in vain. Ultimately, being frustrated the Complainant lodged a case before this Forum seeking reliefs and compensation as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
The O.P. No.1, the Branch Manager, Pan Card Clubs Ltd., Cooch Behar and the O.P. No.2, the Managing Director, Pan Card Clubs Ltd., Prabhadevi, Mumbai have appeared through their Ld. Agent and contested the case by filing W/V, denying all the material allegations as brought by the Complainant against them.
The prime contention of the O.Ps is that Pan Card Clubs Ltd. is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and having its registered office at Mumbai. The Complainant expressed her desire to purchase the room night in the hotels of the company under the holiday option of Pan Card Clubs, Divine Holiday Membership for 66 months for the period from 13/10/2009 to 13/04/2015. It is admitted fact that the certificate bearing Folio No.COO/D-4579 was issued to the Complainant by the O.Ps. Further contention of the O.Ps is that the O.Ps also offered Group Insurance Policy and paid the amount to the Insurance Company.
The O.Ps further contended that the Complainant never utilized the room nights of the O.Ps purchased by her that means the customer did not avail the service offered by the O.Ps for which no question of deficiency in service appeared.
The O.Ps also averred that the present Complainant is not a consumer as per the C.P. Act, 1986 also this Forum has no jurisdiction to try the present dispute as because the Complainant entered in contract with the O.Ps on 13.10.2009 where it has been clear that any dispute between the parties subject to the jurisdiction of Mumbai Courts only.
By putting all the above, the O.Ps prayed for dismissal of the case with other reliefs as the Forum may deem feet and proper.
Considering the pleadings of both sides, the following points are framed in order to arrive at a decision.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully along with Evidence on Affidavit filed by the parties also perused the entire materials on record and heard the argument as advanced by the Complainant and the Ld, Agent for the O.Ps, perused also the W/Ar. Filed by the Ld. Agent for the O.Ps.
Point No.1.
The Complainant purchased a policy bearing Folio No. COO/D-4579 on 13/10/2009 from the O.P. No.2 and the O.P. No. 1 being a branch office of the O.P. N. 2 received the policy amount from the Complainant. Thus, the relation between the Complainant and the O.Ps, so established from the record we are convinced to hold that the present Complainant is a consumer as per C.P. Act 1986.
Point No.2.
The O.P. No. 1 is the branch office of the O.P. No. 2 that is situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum and the claim amount of the Complainant is far less than the prescribed limit as such this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both the points are taken up for the convenience of discussion as well as related with each other.
Undisputedly, the Complainant obtained a policy bearing Folio No. COO/D-4579 on 13.10.2009 from the O.P. No.1 for 5 yrs. 6 months.
It is also not in dispute that the O.P. Company issued a Divine Holiday Policy in favour of the Complainant.
The point of the dispute is that the O.P Company failed to give the insured value to the Complainant even after elapsing maturity date.
It appears from the documents made available in the record that the Complainant purchased one policy launched by the O.P. Company on 13.10.2009. The option of the said policy selected by the Complainant Divine Holiday and purchased rooms for availing service with rate of Rs.1,500/- per room. The Complainant deposited Rs.54,000/- for purchasing the said policy. The Folio bearing No.COO/D-4579 clearly goes to show that purchased value of per room night was Rs.1,500/- . It transpires from the W/V of the O.Ps that the Membership under the Devine Holiday scheme for utilizing 60 room nights for 66 months commenced on 13.10.2009 which expired on 13.04.2015.
During the course of the argument, the Ld. Agent for the O.Ps vehemently argued and also stated in their W/V as well as in evidence on affidavit that the Complainant did not avail the services as offered by the O.Ps also never utilized the room night services for which no question of deficiency on the part of the O.Ps. There is no scrap of papers in the record filed by the O.P. to substantiate their contention. The O.P. admitted the fact of deposit the amount to the O.P.
In this juncture, it is pertinent to mention here that as and when the O.Ps received the amount for the policy and issued certificate with an assurance to return more amount as surrender value after maturity, the service established for which the plea as taken by the O.Ps is not tenable in the eye of law. Furthermore, the O.Ps issued a cheque bearing No. 396503 for Rs. 76,695/- dated 12.02.2016 in favour of the Complainant but the said cheque has not been encashed due to in sufficient balance. Ultimately, the Complainant deprived from enjoying the matured value of his deposited money even after getting cheque from the end of the O.Ps.
It is the case of the Complainant that he did not receive the matured amount not the allegation of cheque bounce. It is pertinent to mention that the O.Ps also took no initiative despite several requests of the Complainant in this regard as stated by the Complainant by swearing an affidavit. It is surprising enough that there is no whisper about the alleged cheque in W/V, Evidence or W/Ar. of the O.Ps. The O.Ps cleverly kept mum in this matter. The cheque bounce dispute is not the subject matter of this case. The dispute is that the Complainant did not receive the maturity amount from the Complainant. Thus, deficiency in service cannot be ruled out against the O.Ps.
It is also pertinent to mention here that any financial institution like the O.P Company cannot enjoy the public money without giving any service. This type of Money Marketing Agencies are running their business by adopting unfair trade practice and deprived the common people by lucrative advertisements also deceived them by introducing unilateral terms and conditions that violate Section 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
In the light of the foregoing discussion it is established that there is clear deficiency in service from the side of the O.Ps by not settling the claim of the Complainant also they have adopted unfair trade practice. Thus, the Complainant is entitled to get reliefs as sought for. All the points are decided in favour of the Complainant.
The complaint succeeds accordingly.
Hence,
It is Ordered,
That the present case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P. No.1 & 2 with cost of Rs.5,000/-.
The O.Ps are directed to return the matured value of Rs.76,695/- in connection with the Folio No. COO/D-4579 to the Complainant with 8% interest p.a. from the date of the maturity of the policy.
The O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for mental pain & agonies of the Complainant. The O.Ps shall have to pay Rs.5,000/- to the Legal Aid Account for adopting unfair trade practice. The entire order must be complied by the O.Ps jointly and/or severally within 30 days i/d the interest @ 8% P.A. shall be levied upon the unpaid amount till its full realization.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action.
Dictated and corrected by me.
