Date of Filing: 27.04.2017 Date of Final Order: 15.09.2017
Smt. Runa Ganguly , Member.
On proper study of the complaint as filed by Sri Gopinath Barman U/S 12 of C.P. Act against Pan Card Clubs Ltd., it reveals that the Complainant deposited Rs72,000/- to Pan Card Clubs Limited in Devine Holiday Scheme against Folio No.1004-01-27216. The O.P. issued a receipt No.S100776843 on 27/04/2011 for 5 years 6 months. The Complainant by depositing the said amount purchased 80 Room Nights @ Rs. 900/- per room. The surrender value of the said scheme was Rs.1,200/- per room night. As per terms and condition of the scheme and instructed by the O.P. No. 1 the Complainant submitted the original certificate to the O.P. No. 1 for NEFT. Unfortunately, the Complainant did not get any amount from the O.Ps even after elapsing six months. Ultimately, being frustrated the Complainant lodged a case before this Forum seeking reliefs and compensation as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
In the present case, after receiving notice the O.Ps appeared through their Ld. Agent and contested the case by filing W/V and contending inter-alia that this case is not maintainable before this Forum and denied the allegations as labeled upon 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 his 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. It is admitted fact that the certificate bearing Folio No.1004-01-27216 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, where in it has been clear that in the event of 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 dim 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 Complainant also perused the entire materials on record and heard the Ex-parte argument.
Point No.1.
The Complainant accepted one Scheme namely Devine Holiday launched by the O.Ps. and deposited certain amount. The O.P. No. 2 issued a certificate bearing Folio No. 1004-01-27216. 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 territorial 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.
Thus, the above two points are decided in favour of the Complainant.
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 certificate/Receipt bearing Folio No. 1004-01-27216 from the O.Ps. and the date of expiry of the said scheme was on 27.10.2016.
The point of the dispute is that the O.P. Company failed to give the Surrender Value of Rs. 96,000/- to the Complainant even after elapsing so many months of the maturity date.
It appears from the documents made available in the record that the Complainant accepted one scheme launched by the O.P. Company. The option of the said scheme/policy selected by the Complainant Devine Holiday and purchased 80 Room Nights for availing service with rate of Rs.900/- per room. The Complainant deposited Rs.72,000/- for purchasing the said policy with additional charge of Rs.125/-. The Folio bearing No. 1004-01-27216 clearly goes to show that purchased value of per room night was Rs. 900/- only and surrender value was Rs.1,800/- per room night i.e. Rs.96,000/- at the time of surrender the policy. It is crystal clear that the Complainant invested Rs.72,000/- to the O.P. Company for the period of 5 years 6 months i.e. 66 months and entitled to get the surrender value of Rs.96,000/-. The Complainant submitted original documents to the O.P. No.1 on 29.11.2016 for getting the surrendar value but the O.Ps. did not pay any heed towards it.
During the course of argument the Ld. Agent for the O.P. vehemently argued that the present case is not maintainable because as per condition of the scheme/policy, all the dispute between the parties shall be subjected to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Mumbai high court. The O.Ps filed Annexure ‘’A’’& ‘’B’’ those are not visible. Furthermore, this unilateral terms and condition is not tenable in the eye of law. Thus, the plea as taken by the O.Ps. is not sustainable.
The Consumer Protection Act is enacted for the interest of the consumer also to protect the interest of the Consumer. It is a benificiary legislation. In the present case the Complainant deposited his hard earned money but deprived of getting its maturity/surrender value from the end of the O.Ps. Thus, this case is well maintainable before this Forum as and when already it has pecuniary and territorial jurisdisction.
In this juncture, it is pertinent to mention here that as and when the O.Ps received the amount for the policy and issued policy/certificate/folio with an assurance to return more amount as surrender value after maturity, the service is well established. The O.Ps failed to return back the maturity amount/surrender value even after surrender of the policy certificate at the ending of the policy period. The O.Ps also took no initiative despite several requests of 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 for which the O.Ps should be penalised.
In the light of the foregoing discussion and the documents made available in the record 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.
The above two points are also decided in favour of the Complainant.
Thus, the complaint succeeds.
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.4,000/-.
The O.Ps are directed to pay the surrender value of Rs.96,000/- in connection with the Folio No. 1004-01-27216 to the Complainant with 8% interest p.a. from the date of the maturity of the policies.
The O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant 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. The copy of the Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in.
Dictated and corrected by me.
