Orissa

Rayagada

CC/18/2016

Kadar Nath Swajni - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Chief Executive Managing Director, Micro Leasing and Founding Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Self

02 Jan 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, RAYAGADA,

AT:  KASTURI NAGAR, Ist.  LANE,   L.I.C. OFFICE     BACK,  PO/DIST: RAYAGADA, STATE:  ODISHA, PIN NO.765001,.E-mail- dcdrfrgda@gmail.com

…

C.C.CASE  NO._18______/2016                                          Date.   2..9. ..2022.

 

P R E S E N T .

Sri   Aswini  Kumar  Mohapatra,                                                            President.

Sri Satish  Kumar  Panigrahi,                                                       Member

 

 

Sri Kedar Nath  Swain, S/O: Ananta Swayni,  C/O: Munna Fruit stall, Main Road, At/Po:Tikiri, Dist: Rayagada,

 

                                                                                                            …Complainant.

Versus.

 

1.The  Chief Executive, Micro Finance Leasing and founding Ltd., REgd.   Head office, B-3020 Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar-7, Odisha.]

 

2.tTe Branch Manager, Kasipur Branch, Micro Finance, Po:Kasipur,Dist:Rayagada,Odisha.

3.The  Narayana Patra,  (Alias)  Mitu Patra, Agent Micro finance Kasipur Branch, Dist:Rayagada.

                                                                                                            …Opposite parties.

 

 

For the complainant:-Self.

For the O.P.:- Set exparte.

 

JUDGEMENT

The  crux of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps for  non refund of deposited  amount  with  interest after maturity bearing policy No.117-020001450 which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

On being noticed the O.Ps.  neither entering in to appear before the commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  12 adjournments had been taken by them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 9 months   for which the objectives  of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant.  Hence after hearing   from  the complainant set the case  exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps are against the principles of  natural justice as envisaged  in the  C.P. Act. Hence the O.Ps.   are set exparte  as the statutory period  for filing of  written version was over  as to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.

We therefore constrained to  proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit. 

Heard from the complainant.   We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant

    FINDINGS.

The main grievance of the complainant is that  after maturity period the O.Ps had not paid the maturity amount. Hence  prays  direct the O.Ps to  refund  the deposited  amount.  Hence this C.C.   case  filed by the complainant  to get relief.

It is the cardinal principle of insurance law that the insurer is in the position of a trustee as it is managing the common fund for and on behalf of the community of policy holders. It has to ensure that nobody is allowed to take undue advantage of the arrangement. That means the management of the insurance business requires care to prevent entry(into group) of people  whose risks are not of the same kind as well as paying claims on losses that are not accidental. The Management of life insurance companies are required to keep this aspect in mind and make all its decisions in  ways that benefit  the community. This applies also to its investments.  That is why successful insurance companies would not be found investing in speculative ventures. The life insurance policy is a contract, in terms of the Indian Contract Act.  A contract is an agreement between two or more parties to do, or not do, so as to create a legally binding relationship. Here in this case the complainant was asked to pay to pay premium  by the agent explaining the benefits contained therein and the entire proposal form was written by the agent in his own hand writing and asked the proposer/complainant to sign on the dotted lines.  The declaration form filled in this case also written by the agent and obtained the signature thereon.  The agent’s responsibility is clearly explained in the IRDA instructions and also U/s 182 and 212 of the contract act. Here the agent has failed to discharge the duty as an agent and in order to get his income as commission has falsely represented the rural folks to divert their money. Hence the O.Ps has clearly violated the norms issued by the IRDA from time to time and as such the O.Ps are liable to pay the amount paid as premium to the complainant.  The investment is made by the O.Ps for the profit and not by the insurer.  Hence the advise given by the agent and  obtaining a form wherein the risk factor is transferred  in favour of the insurer’s is definitely coming under the purview of unfair trade practice.

When a rural folk invest the money with the assurance of the agent in the insurance and when he came to know that the above investment is not yielding any profit even after years and as such the above investment brought by the agent and accepted by the O.P is ;not with any intention to give any economic protection but with an intention to grab the money of the rural folks. Hence the plea of the O.Ps can not be accepted.

In view of the discussion above, it is found to be  an unfair trade  practice made by the agent and O.Ps.  The O.Ps  have introduced the agent to do the unfair deal with the rural folk as seen from the counter and as such the complainant is entitled to get  refund of the entire amount deposited by the complainant in the said scheme so as to enable them to invest the same with their choice.

We have gone through the complaint petition and documents available in the record. This Commission  by relying upon a citation passed by Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi in the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Versus M/s Sukhadham India Pvt. Ltd.,   reported  in  2011(1) CPR 191  where  in  observed “ Insurance Company must settle claim without delay”. In the light of the above decision of law we allow the case.

 

In the foregoing  circumstances & with the  above observation  it appears just and proper being this is a welfare legislation to decide the matter  the complaint petition is allowed in part  for the best  interest  of justice.

In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and  In Res-IPSA-Loquiture  as well as  in the light of the settled legal position  discussed  as above referring citations the plea of the  O.Ps to avoid the claim  which is Aliance Juris.  Hence  we allow the above complaint petition  in part.

Hence  to  meet the  ends of justice, the following order is passed.                                                    ORDER.

In  resultant  the complaint petition stands  allowed  in  part .

The O.Ps are  ordered to  pay total deposited  amount  a sum of Rs.36,000/- towards the policy  No. 117-020001450 along  with  interest  @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of respective deposit till realisation    to the complainant.  .

The O.Ps are ordered to comply the above directions within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Dictated and corrected by me.

Pronounced  on this         2^nd.   day  of  September, 2022.

 

                                     

                                                Member.                                President