Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/29/2014

Smt. Tallam Arunakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Executive Director, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co., ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Thota V.Ramesh

15 Jul 2015

ORDER

Filing Date:19.06.2014

Order Date: 15.07.2015

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

WEDNESDAY THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

 

 

C.C.No.29/2014

 

Between

 

Smt. Tallam Arunakar,

W/o. late. T.Y.Sudhakar,

15/1-67, GS Car Street,

Tirupati.                                                                                             … Complainant

 

 

And

 

1.         The Executive Director,

            ICICI Prue Life Tower,

            1089, Appa Sahib Marathe Marg,

            Prabhadevi,

            Mumbai – 400 025.

 

2.         The Executive Vice President,

            ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Lt.,

            Vinod Silks Mills Compound,

            Chakravarthi Ashok Nagar,

            Ashok Road,

            Kandivalli East,

            Mumbai – 400 101.

 

3.         The Branch Manager,

            O/o. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            6-2-83, Bhavani Nagar,

            K.T.Road,

            Tirupati.

 

4.         Miss Bharathi,

            Agent Code No.00151827 ICICI Bank,

            1-14-577, Tilak Road,

            Tirupati.                                                                                 …  Opposite parties..

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 25.06.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri. Thota V.Ramesh, counsel for the complainant, and Sri.C.S.Chandra Sekhar, counsel for the opposite parties 1 to 3, and opposite party No.4 remained exparte, and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986 by the complainant for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties to refund a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as assured with interest at 18% p.a., 2) to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards damages for the mental agony caused by the opposite parties, 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards costs of the litigation and 4) to grant such other reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

            2.  The averments of the complaint in brief are:-   that the complainant is doing ready made garments business. Opposite party No.1 is the Executive Director of ICICI Prue Life Insurance Company Ltd., Opposite party No.2 is the Vice President of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Opposite party No.3 is the Branch Manager of opposite parties 1 and 2 at Tirupati and opposite party No.4 is the agent of ICICI Bank.

            3.  Opposite party No.4 being the agent of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd., came to the shop of complainant and convinced her by explaining policy benefits and collected Rs.1,00,000/- from the mother of complainant on 10.06.2010 and issued policy bearing No.14028322 showing the premium amount as Rs.99,000/- and balance in deposit as Rs.1,000/-. The complainant being convinced with the opposite party firm entered into an agreement for two policies one in the name of complainant and another in the name of her daughter Miss.T.C.Bhavana. As opposite party No.4 gave assurance to the complainant at the time of agreement that the complainant can surrender the policies after making payment of premiums for three consecutive years, accordingly the complainant made payment for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 and again in the year 2012 and 2013 opposite party No.4 asked the complainant to pay two more premiums in early (in advance) for the next two years, so that the complainant will be benefited with less deductions at the time of surrendering the policies. Accordingly, the complainant paid the premiums for the next 2 years i.e. 2013 and 2014. Therefore, the complainant is legally entitled to receive the said amount paid along with interest, but the opposite parties did not pay / refund the amounts so far, inspite of complainant’s several demands through phone and personal visits to the office of opposite party No.3, they paid deaf ear. Finally, opposite party No.3, who colluded with opposite party No.4, bluntly refused to refund the amount paid by the complainant and said that the complainant can go and report to whomever she likes. Hence the complaint.

            4.  Opposite party No.4 (agent) remained exparte.

            5.  Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed common written version admitting the designations of opposite parties 1 to 3 as described in the complaint and the policy taken by the complainant and making payments by complainant for 3 consecutive years from 2010 to 2012. But denied the last two payments alleged to have made in the years 2013 and 2014. The opposite parties specifically contended that they did not receive premium amounts for the years 2013 and 2014. They further contended that the premiums are payable through any of the following modes only viz – a) Cash b) Cheques c) Demand Drafts  d) Pay Orders e) Bankers Cheque f) internet facility as approved by the Company from time to time g) Electronic Clearing System h) Credit Card and a premium shall be construed to be received only when the same is received in any of the office of the company.

            6.  That the complainant is a graduate, she has filled and signed the proposal form along with other documents and first annual premium was deposited to opposite parties 1 to 3 in order to seek insurance policy under ICICI Pru Assure Wealth-Super (UIN 105L098V01), that the complainant did not raise any objection or returned the policy within the free look period of 15 days after submitting the proposals, it implies that the complainant agreed to all the terms and conditions of the policy. The company is not responsible for the promises made by the agent, if such promises were beyond the terms and conditions of the policy. That the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the C.P.Act, as the present complaint is arising out of an investment policy taken by the complainant for speculative gain, the policy is a unit linked policy, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1 to 3. Complainant had other policies bearing Nos.17109558 and 17832407 issued on 30.10.2012 and 26.08.2013 respectively with yearly premiums of Rs.1,00,000/- under each policy, the complainant paid the first premium under cheque Nos.001218 and 001285 respectively. The opposite parties 1 to 3 never received Rs.2,00,000/- under the above said policy for the years 2013 and 2014. The case is false, frivolous, vexatious and devoid of merits and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

            7.  Complainant and opposite parties 1 to 3 have filed their chief affidavits P.W.1 and R.W.1 and also filed their written arguments respectively. Exs.A1 to A6 for the complainant and Exs.B1 to B5 for the opposite parties were marked.

            8.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i)  Whether the complainant paid the premiums for 5 years as contended by the complainant?

            (ii)  Whether the acts of agent are liable on the master / principal?

            (iii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

            (iv)  To what relief?

            9.  Point No.(i):- to answer this point, it is pertinent to mention that the complainant is under obligation to establish that she had made the annual premium amounts for 5 years i.e. for the years commencing from 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014. The opposite parties fairly admitting the first 3 yearly premiums for the years from 2010 to 2012 and specifically denying the payments for the years 2013 and 2014. So, the disputed payments are for the years 2013 and 2014. The complainant is not an illiterate, she is admittedly a graduate doing ready-made garments business and also having some experience in dealing with accounts and money transactions. The complainant in her complaint, chief affidavit and also in written arguments, as well as in the notices under Exs.A2 and A5 failed to mention when she made annual premium of the policy for the years 2013 and 2014, similarly she also failed to mention to whom that amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid i.e. whether the said Rs.2,00,000/- for the years 2013 and 2014 was paid to the agent opposite party No.4, or to the company through opposite parties 1 to 3 and also failed to mention the mode of payment, whether the said amount was paid in cash or by way of cheque or by way of Demand Drafts or through any other electronic mode. Simply mentioning in the complaint as well as in the chief affidavit and written arguments that she has made the payments for the years 2013 and 2014 on the assurance given by opposite party No.4 agent by name Bharathi is not sufficient and it was not substantiated by any evidence, no iota of evidence is placed before this Forum to prove that she has paid annual premium for the year 2013 and annual premium for the year 2014, so far as her policy bearing No.14028322. Particularly, the complainant relied on Ex.A4 Bank Statement of the complainant dt:02.07.2014 commencing the period from 26.10.2012 to 05.07.2013. Ex.A4 the statement of account is in the name of Sri Teja Dresses Pro: Arunakar, shows that there was a debit of Rs.1,00,000/- on 26.10.2012 drawn through the cheque bearing No.001218 and on the same day another debit of Rs.1,00,000/- drawn through the cheque bearing No.001217. Similarly, the 2^nd page shows that there was another debit on 15.06.2013 for Rs.1,00,000/- through cheque bearing No.001285, at page.3 of Ex.A4 shows another debit of Rs.1,00,000/- on 05.07.2013 through cheque bearing No.001286. These entries in Ex.A4 were not reflected anywhere in the complaint, chief affidavit or the written arguments or even in the notices under Exs.A2 and A5. It was also not mentioned by the complainant anywhere in her pleadings, evidence affidavit or written arguments that whom the said cheques were given and in the name of whom the cheques were issued. When there is no pleadings for which Ex.A4 is to be supported and when there is no specific pleadings with regard to the entries (deductions) covered by Ex.A4 pertaining to policy No.14028322, it cannot be said that those amounts were paid to the policy bearing No.14028322 of the complainant. So far as the first 3 premiums are concerned, the opposite parties are admitting that the complainant paid 3 yearly premiums for consecutive 3 years. Under the above circumstances and in the absence of any pleadings that she has made the said two premiums for the years 2013 and 2014 towards her policy No.14028322, we are unable to convince with the case of the complainant and we are of the opinion that two yearly annual premiums for the years 2013 and 2014 were not made in policy No.14028322. Here it is pertinent to mention that the daughter of the complainant by name T.C.Bhavana, in her case in C.C.No.30/2014 also claiming that she made two annual premiums for her policy No.14025997 under Ex.A4. So, for both the policies by the complainant herein and complainant in C.C.No.30/2014 relying on Ex.A4, which cannot be accepted under the  circumstances. Accordingly, this point is nagatived.

            10.  Point No.(ii):-  to answer this point, we have to state that when the opposite parties 1 to 3 have accepted the agency of Miss Bharathi - opposite party No.4, whatever the acts done by the agent are deemed to have been done by the master / principal i.e. opposite parties 1 to 3. If anything goes wrong with opposite party No.4, necessarily opposite parties 1 to 3 have to bear the liability for the acts done by their agents, provided, the complainant has to prove that those amounts were paid to the agent. Here in this case, nowhere it is specifically mentioned that cheques covered by Ex.A4 were handed-over to opposite party No.4 or that the opposite party No.4 has collected all the yearly premiums and deposited the same with opposite parties 1 to 3 or collected and failed to deposit any of the premiums to opposite parties 1 to 3 by the agent. Accordingly this point is answered.

            11.  Point No.(iii):-  to answer this point, basing on the discussion made in point No.1 and the pleadings as well as evidence affidavit and written arguments and also Exs.A2 and A5, it can be safely held that the complainant is entitled to only        3 premiums that were admitted by the opposite parties for the years from June 2010 to June 2012 with interest as per the terms and conditions of the policy or for the amount already paid with surrender value as contemplated in the policy. The complainant is not entitled for the amounts alleged to have been paid for the years 2013 and 2014. Accordingly, this point is answered.

            12.  Point No.(iv):-  in view of our discussion on points 1 to 3, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to only for the premium amounts paid for the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 with surrender value along with interest thereon as prescribed in the terms and conditions of the policy under Ex.A1 and complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

            In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties        1 to 3 to pay / refund the amount paid for 3 yearly premiums at Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) per premium for a period of 3 years from 2010 to 2012 with interest and surrender value as per the terms and conditions of the policy / policy certificate under Ex.A1. The opposite parties also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. The opposite parties are further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the policy amounts of Rs.3,00,000/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization. Rest of the claim is hereby dismissed.                                     

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 15^th day of July, 2015.   

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                                         

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT

 

PW-1: Smt. Tallam Arunakar (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Party.

 

RW-1:  Nagalaxmi Shetty (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original Copy of Policy No.14028322 in the name of Complainant. Dt: 19.06.2010.
	Office copy of notice with postal receipts. Dt: 21.05.2014.
	Office copy of reply notice issued to Complainant by Opposite Parties. Dt: 05.06.2014. (Original)
	A true copy of Bank statement of the complainant showing payments made to opposite parties. Dt: 02.07.2014.
	Rejoinder issued to the opposite parties along with postal receipt.  Dt: 03.07.2014.
	Returned covers of the Opposite Party.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTYs

 

Exhibits   (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
1.	A photo copy of proposal form. Dt: 10.06.2010.
2.	A photo copy of Policy.
3.	A photo copy of Application along with first premium deposited SBH cheque bearing No.001218 for policy bearing No.17109558. Dt: 24.10.2012
4.	A photo copy of Application along with first premium deposited SBH  cheque bearing No.001285 for policy bearing No.17832407. Dt: 14.06.2013. and Medical Examination Report.
5.	A photo copy of reply to notice Dt: 21.05.2014.

  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Sd/-

                                                                                                                President

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                 Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

 

  Copies to:-   1. The Complainant.

                        2. The opposite parties 1 to 4.