C.F. CASE No. : CC/11/03
COMPLAINANT : Aruna Sarkar
W/o Kanakmay Sarkar
Vill. Krishnagar Police Quarter,
P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,
Dist. Nadia.
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs: 1) The General Manager,
The peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd.
Peerless Bhaban, 3 Esplanade East, Kolkata – 69
2) Branch Manager, Krishnagar Branch,
The peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd.
Rabindranath Tagore Road, Krishnagar, Nadia.
3) Purna Chandra Saha,
S/o Jagannath Saha,
Vill. Karimpur near Chakraborty Kath Mill,
P.O. & P.S. Karimpur, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 21st April, 2011
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that she purchased 4 policies from the OP No. 1 & 2 through the OP No. 3 in 2003. The valuation of each of the policy certificate was Rs. 25,000/-. At the time of purchasing the policy it was the contract that she would get Rs. 90,250/- for each certificate in 2010. As per terms of the policy on 19.03.04 she further paid Rs. 1,00,000/- for the 4 policies vide cheque No. CCS 214244, A/c. No. 9178 on UBI Majdia Branch which was duly received by the OP No. 1 & 2 on 24.04.04. At the time of maturity it was the condition that in 2010 the petitioner would get Rs. 3,61,000/- in total against the 4 policies, but actually the OPs paid her Rs.2,43,702/-, i.e., she got Rs. 1,17,298/- less than the assured amount. She, thereafter, brought it to the notice of the OPs by sending letters. By a letter dtd. 09.07.10 the OPs intimated that they would consider her case, but by another letter dtd. 27.07.10 the OP No. 1 intimated her that all the due amounts were paid to her though actually she got Rs. 2,43,702/- and a balance amount of Rs. 1,17,298/- is still unpaid. So having no other alternative, she has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
On the side of the OP No. 1 & 2 a written version is filed, inter alia, stating that the case is not maintainable in its present form and nature. It is their specific contention that this petitioner purchased 4 policies from the OPs at a price of Rs. 25,000/- each. It is their contention also that the complainant had to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- initially and Rs. 1,00,000/- in the next year, i.e., in 2004 for the policy certificates. As per terms and conditions and on payment of the said amount, the complainant would have get maturity value of Rs. 90,250/- each on maturity of the same on 19.03.10. The OPs also submit that the complainant did not follow their instruction. Rather she entrusted the OP No. 3 to deposit the cheque No. 214344 dtd. 19.03.04 for Rs. 1,00,000/- with the OP company. Since it was not ascertainable as to whether the complainant had remitted her second instalment under the 4 certificates, the OP No. 2 as per the instruction of the OP No. 3 adjusted Rs. 25,000/- each against certificate No. A8349189 and A8349190 and the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- against three other certificates of other certificate holders. The complainant did not raise any objection or enquire since encashment of the cheque No. 214244, dtd. 19.03.04, so this OP was unaware about the same. Naturally, the OP No. 2 in its usual course sent discharge form cum vouchers for Rs. 90,250/- each towards maturity value under the certificate No. A8349189 & A8349190 and discharge form cum vouchers for Rs. 32,898/- each towards maturity value of other two certificates belonging to the complainant. After deducting TDS the OPs sent several cheques to the complainant aggregating Rs. 89,574/- each for certificate No. A8349189 & A8349190 and Rs. 32,779/- for other two certificates which were duly received by the complainant with full and final satisfaction. After receipt of the letter of the complainant for alleging of less payment, an enquiry was held by these OPs from which it is revealed that the complainant had other financial transactions with the OP No. 3 and a dispute arose between the complainant and her husband on one side and the OP No. 3 on the other hand which was ultimately settled and the OP No. 3 returned the entire amount which the complainant would have received under certificate No. A8349191 and A8349192 by the ltter dtd. 27.07.10. The OP company informed the aforesaid facts to the complainant with a request to visit his office for a discussion regarding settlement of the dispute. So these OPs have no negligence regarding payment of maturity value to this complainant and no question of less payment of Rs. 1,17,298/- by the OPs does arise. Therefore, this complainant has no cause of action to file this case and she is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
OP No. 3 has not filed any separate written version in this case, but he files a petition, inter alia, stating that he supports the contention made by the OP No. 1 & 2 and he has nothing to state separately.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs along with the annexed documents filed by the parties and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that admittedly the complainant purchased 4 certificates (Peerless Social Welfare Scheme) from OP No. 1 & 2 through OP No. 3 on 19.03.03 at a price of Rs. 25,000/- per certificate. It is also admitted that in the first year the complainant paid Rs. 1,00,000/- and as per condition of the policy she had to pay further Rs. 1,00,000/- in 2004 as premium. From the policy certificate it is available that on maturity i.e., on 19.03.10 she would get Rs. 90,250/- for each certificate, i.e., in total she would get Rs. 3,61,000/-. The complainant’s specific allegation is that actually OPs paid up her Rs. 2,43,702/- and a balance amount of Rs. 1,17,298/- was not paid to her though she deposited the entire premium amount in 2 years i.e., in 2003 & 2004. The deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the complainant in 2003 in favour of the OP No. 1 & 2 is not denied by them. Regarding deposit of Rs. 1,00,000/- vide cheque No. CCS 214244 by the complainant on 19.03.04, it is the contention of the OPs that out of the said amount they actually got Rs. 50,000/- which was duly adjusted with two certificates of the complainant being No. A8349189 and A8349190. But from ‘Annexure – 2’ it is available that on 24.04.04 the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was credited to the Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. from the account of the complainant being No. 9178. So from this document it is clear to us that in 2004 the second amount of instalment being Rs. 1,00,000/- was duly credited to the OP Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd through the account of the complainant. But we find that the OPs adjusted Rs. 50,000/- with two certificates of the complainant being No. A8349189 and A8349190. It is the case of the complainant also that the OPs paid up the other two certificate being No. A8349191 and A8349192 and regarding the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/-, it is their submission that there was previous transaction between the complainant and the OP No. 3 who repaid the same amount to the complainant in order to settlement of the financial dispute. It is not clear to us how the amount deposited in favour of the OP Peerless General Finance & Investment Co. Ltd. can be adjusted with the monetary transactions between the complainant and the OP No. 3. Ld. Lawyer for the OPs has also submitted that there is no rule for such settlement. Rather he has relied upon a document filed on the date of argument on the side of the OPs which bears signature of the complainant without any date. This document was addressed to the OP No. 3 and not to the OP No. 1 or 2. In this letter, it is stated that the complainant agrees not to continue the installment of the other two policies and as such she relinquishes her further claim regarding those two policies on the ground that she and her husband required money in which they requested the OP No. 3 to return them 50,000/-. In this letter it is also stated that the complainant and the OP No. 3 took Rs. 50,000/- from the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- which she gave vide cheque No. CCS 214244. On the side of the OPs no such rule is filed to show that after depositing of the cheque No. CCS 214244 in favour of OP No. 1 & 2, the OP No. 3 (agent of OP No. 1 & 2) has the priority to return Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant and to allow the petitioner to discontinue her two policies. Ld. lawyer for the OPs has frankly submitted that discontinuation of policy can be allowed by the OP No. 1 & 2 only and such a prayer can be moved before them by the complainant. Here in this case no such petition was filed by the complainant before the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 2. The alleged letter does not bear any date also. It bears the signature of the complainant which is denied by the complainant at the time of argument. We have carefully compared this signature of the complainant along with the original signature made in the petition of complaint and on a careful examination, we find that there is difference between the original signature of the complainant and the alleged signature on this document filed by the OPs at the time of argument. Rather we hold that this document is prepared for the purpose of this case which is not a genuine one. We do also hold that no authentic document is filed by the OPs to that extent that the OPs refunded Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant after depositing Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour of the OP No. 1 vide cheque No. 214244. On the other hand, it is available on record that the OPs did not pay the entire certificate amount to the complainant for the two certificates bearing No. A8349191 and A8349192. At ‘para-12’ of the written version it is stated by the OPs that they adjusted Rs. 50,000/- for two certificates No. A8349189 and A8349190 and the balance amount of Rs. 50,000/- was adjusted against three other certificates of other certificates holders. There is no explanation on the side of the OPs how they adjusted the balance amount Rs. 50,000/- which was paid by the complainant against three other certificates holders. No document is filed by the OPs to show that this act was done by them with the consent of the complainant. There is no denial by the OPs that they did not encash the cheque of Rs. 1,00,000/- which was deposited by the complainant vide cheque No. 214244 dtd. 19.03.04. Therefore, on a careful consideration of the facts of this case along with the annexed documents and after hearing the arguments advanced by the Ld. Lawyers for the parties our considered view is that the complainant duly deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- vide cheque No. 214244 dtd. 19.03.04 in her account No. 9178, UBI Majdia Branch and the amount was duly encashed by the OP No. 2 on 24.04.04. So we find that as per terms and conditions of the certificate the complainant duly deposited the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- each in 2003 & 2004. At the same time we do also hold that it is not at all proved that with the consent of the complainant the OPs adjusted Rs. 50,000/- against three other certificates or other certificate holders or the complainant got back the said amount through the OP No.3. It is not at all proved that the complainant at any point of time applied before the OP No. 1 for discontinuation of her two other certificates being No. A8349191 and A8349192.
In view of the above discussions, we are inclined to hold that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in this case which is established also as the OPs have not paid all the due amount to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the certificates. We do further hold that the complainant has become able to prove her case. So she is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for. In result case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/11/03 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OPs. The complainant is entitled to get a decree of Rs. 1,17,298/- along with Rs. 10,000/- for mental harassment caused to her plus Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost, i.e., in total Rs. 1,29,298/-. The OPs are jointly or severally liable to pay the decretal amount to the complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
