THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, M.A., L.L.M., President,

And

Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Friday the 20^th day of March, 2015

C.C.No.103/2014

Between:

P.Sathaynarayana,

 S/o P. Narasimhulu,

Insurance Adviser cum Canvassing Agent,

S.B.I Life Insurance,

R/o D.No.17/190 A,

Pathikonda Village and Mandal,

Kurnool District-518 380.                                                                   …Complainant

-Vs-

1. The Legal Heads,

    S.B.I Life Insurance Company Limited,

    Central Process Centre,

    Kapas Bhavan,

    Plot No.3A, Sector 10,

    Second Floor,

    C.B.D. Balapur Navi Mumbai-400 614.

2. The Manager,

    S.B.I Life Insurance Company Limited,

    Registered Office Nataraj M.V. Road,

    Estern Express High Way Junction,

    Andheri (East),

    Mumbai-400 069.

3. Rajkumar Raina,

    Head Client Relationship,

    Central Process Centre,

    Kapas Bhavan, Plot No.3 A,

    Sector 10, Second Floor,

    C.B.D. Balapur Navi Mumbai-400 614.

4. The Regional Manager,

    S.B.I Life Insurance Company Limited,

    Parisharam Bhavan,

    Basheer Bagh,

    Hyderabad-500 063.                                                      …OPPOSITE PARTIES

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.K.Venkata Swamy, Advocate for complainant and Sri.M.Syam Kumar Reddy, Advocate for opposite party No.1 and opposite parties 2 to 4 called absent and set exparte and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

                                                                                                     ORDER

(As per Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, President,)

      C.C. No.103/2014

1.       This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying:-

1. To pass an award in favour of the complainant and against the respondents (opposite parties) and also to pass award in respect of the costs of the complaint and also grant such other relief or reliefs as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the ends of justice.  As prayed for supra.

2.    The facts of the complaint in brief run as follows:- The complainant is working as Insurance Adviser and Canvasing Agent on behalf of the S.B.I., Life Insurance Company Limited and collecting the premium from the policy holders and the same has to be deposited in the Bank.  He used to purchase D.Ds., on behalf of policy holders and used to send the same to concern S.B.I., Life Insurance Officers and obtaining  the policies from the S.B.I., Life Insurance Company and he used to hand over the same to the policy holders.  He also used to sort out the disputes if any between the policy holders and the company.  He is not having any avocation other than the Insurance Adviser/Agent.

          Opposite party No.1 is Legal Head of S.B.I., Life Insurance Company, opposite party No.2 is the Registered Office of S.B.I., Life Insurance Company Limited, opposite party No.3 is the Head Client of S.B.I., Life Insurance Company Limited and opposite party No.4 is the Regional Manager of S.B.I., Life Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad.  Opposite parties 1 to 3 are located at Mumbai.  S.B.I., Life Insurance Company Limited, is having several branches in the State of Andhra Pradesh one such branch is situated in Mahaboob Nagar.  One B.Ravi Raja Reddy was working as Branch Manager at Mahaboob Nagar.  He was appointed by opposite parties 1 and 2.  The complainant was dealing with the Mahaboob Nagar Branch to pay the premium amount of policies by obtaining D.Ds., Cheques and cash payment etc., and used to receive policies and renewal of policies, though Mahaboob Nagar Branch. 

          He says during the normal course of transaction he purchased the D.Ds., on behalf of the policy holders given below.

          He sent those D.Ds., to the policy premium purpose to the Branch Officer, at Mahaboob Nagar Branch.  He made several requests at Mahaboob Nagar Branch for issue of policy certificates, renewal receipts etc.  But there was no response from them.  He made several efforts and addressed letters to the Legal Heads of opposite parties 1 and 2.  But they stated, above said transactions are not received and not credited to the account of opposite parties 1 and 2.  Subsequently the complainant made several efforts and came to conclusion, that V.Ravi Raja Reddy who was working as a Branch Manager of Mahaboob Nagar Branch misused his power and transferred amounts covered under the above transactions diverted to the amounts of various persons who are his kith and kin.  Those acts of V.Ravi Raja Reddy are highly illegal and arbitrary.  The said V.Ravi Raja Reddy was appointed by opposite parties 1 and 2.  He abused his powers with a malafied intention to cheat the complainant and to have wrongful gain.  He also threatened the complainant wit dire consequences done. 

          Opposite parties 1 and 2 said that the details of the D.Ds. were not available with them.  The complainant made hectic efforts and incurred a loss of Rs.2,00,000/- in respect of each transaction.  He paid the amounts to the persons from whom he has collected premium.  The subscribers gave oral complaint against him as it he has cheated them.  As the complainant is the person of a respectable family and law binding citizen, shouldered the responsibility and paid the amounts to the subscribers by selling his property.

          He also got issued a legal notice through his counsel to opposite parties on 11.03.2013.  Opposite parties issued a reply by stating the said V.Ravi Raja Reddy resigned from the company on 31.03.2008 itself.  Hence he filed the present complaint by praying to pass an award in his favour and against the opposite parties  by directing them to pay loss of Rs.2,00,000/- to trace out the D.Ds., Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of this CC.

3.       On service of notice opposite parties engaged counsel and filed detailed written version which run into 12 pages.  The sum and substance of the written version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 in brief run as follows. 

In pages 2 to 8 they had taken preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the complainant filed by the complaint for want of territorial jurisdiction, limitation and consumer and service provider relationship etc.  The complainant is an Insurance Adviser.  He is not a customer of the opposite parties.  There is no customer and service provider relationship between the complainant and opposite parties.  Thus the complainant does not come within the definition of Consumer under Section 2 (1) (b) and the complaint did not fall within the definition of “complaint” under Section 2 (1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complaint is vague and evasive as to under what provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complainant is seeking the relief. 

          The opposite parties 1 to 3 are at Mumbai and the opposite party No.4 is at Hyderabad.  The complaint is filed at Kurnool.  Hence this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.  The complainant cannot file a complaint by aggregation the individual grievances.  On this ground also the complaint filed by the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          The complainant has raised allegations regarding some payments made in the year 2009.  The cause of action arisen, if any in the year 2009.  The complaint is filed after a gap of more than 5 years.  Hence it is barred by limitation. 

          This compliant involves determination of issues relating to fraud, misappropriation of funds which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and can be adjudicated by a Civil Court only. 

          All the allegations are made against Mr.Ravi Raja Reddy.  The opposite parties are not privy to what transpired between the complainant and Mr.Ravi Raja Reddy.  The opposite parties are not responsible for any Act of Commission or Omission on the part of Mr.Ravi Raja Reddy.

          The opposite parties never authorized any of its employees/agents to accept any amount towards the proposal deposit/premium/renewal premium in cash.  It is clearly mentioned in the website of S.B.I., Life also.  Hence the complaint deserves to dismiss against the opposite parties 1 and 2.

          The opposite parties have received D.Ds., in dispute towards proposal deposit/renewal premium of different customers.  The details of the same are as follows:-

          In the case of D.Ds., drawee the name not mentioned on it. There is no reason to suspect the transaction when the D.Ds. were received towards renewal premium/first premium. Opposite parties have not received the D.Ds., bearing Nos.879674 and 875611 complainant is making allegations regarding transfer to account No.3484 (Pedda Narasimhulu) and another transfer of amount from account by P.Sudhakar Gupta to one Mr.Venkata Rao’s account.  They are not within the knowledge of this opposite parties and this opposite parties are not privy to the said transactions and the same are denied.  The respondents had adjusted the above said D.Ds. towards proposal deposits/renewal premium based on the proposal forms and D.Ds. received along with it towards the initial premium/renewal premium as the case may be.  Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant has not produced any proof to prove that the D.Ds., in dispute were purchased by him.  The banker’s certificate produced by the complainant just proves that D.Ds., were purchased in favour of S.B.I., Life Insurance Company Limited which is accepted by the opposite parties and also by mentioning the accounting details of the said D.Ds. towards other policies.  In para 15 page 8 of the written version it is stated in terms of section 227 and section228 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Principal is not bound when the agent exceeds the authority.  The answering opposite parties are not liable for any Act of Mr.Ravi Raja Reddy which exceeds his authority.  Thus there is no cause of action against these opposite parties. 

In pages 8 to 12 of the written version they have denied para wise allegations made by the complainant in his complaint.  They deny all the allegations mentioned in the complaint which is contrary to or inconsistent with what is stated by the respondents. They denied that the complainant solved several complaints and does the key role in clearance of claims etc.  Collecting the amount by the complainant towards renewal premium in cash and purchased D.Ds. on behalf of customers and such a transaction would be private transactions between the complainant and the customers, as the agent is not authorized to collect cash and to purchase D.D. on behalf of the customers.  The complainant is not authorized to accept the renewal premium and if the petitioner does so, he exceeds his authority.  While replying to the legal notice, it was wrongly mentioned that Mr.Ravi Raja Reddy resigned from the Company on 31.03.2008 and the same was a typographical error.  Sri.Ravi Raja Reddy is not attending Office since 16.07.2010 and he is absconding.  The opposite parties are not liable for any Act of Mr.Ravi Raja Reddy.  The complainant was an Insurance Adviser and he is not customer of the opposite parties as far as this complaint is concerned. Thus such complaints are outside the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

          The complainant has not produced any proof to prove that the D.Ds. in dispute were purchased by him.  It is specifically denied that opposite parties are liable to pay amount paid by the complainant for loss of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.5,00,000/- compensation, costs etc.  In case of D.D., the purchaser’s name is not mentioned on it and there is no reason to suspect the transaction when the D.Ds., were received along with the proposal forms and when the details of D.D’s were clearly mentioned in the  proposal forms, as for the duly filled and signed proposal forms.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence they pray to dismiss the CC against all the opposite parties with costs.

Opposite parties 2 to 4 called absent and set exparte.

4.       After filing of written version the complainant filed sworn affidavit in support of his contention and marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4.  Sworn affidavit of authorized representative of S.B.I., Life Insurance Company Limited filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 and marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B7.

5.       After closure of evidence on behalf of the both parties they filed written arguments.  In the written versions and also in the written arguments both the complainant and opposite party No.1 reiterated all the allegations made in the compliant and written version respectively.

6.       Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether the complainant is a Consumer?

2. Whether the CC filed by the complainant is in time?

3. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?

4. If so to what relief?

7.      POINT No.i:- It is definet case of the complainant that he was working as Insurance Adviser and the agent   of S.B.I., Life Insurance Company Limited.  He used to canvas on behalf of S.B.I., Life Insurance Company Limited.  He used to collect the amount from the policy holders obtaining D.Ds., either towards the proposal premium or towards renewal premium and used to send the same to concern branches.  The opposite parties are contending there is no customer and service provider relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties.  Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, reads Section 2 (d) Consumer means any person who

(i)       “Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; Or

(ii)      (hires or avails of ) any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment  and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who (hires or avails of ) the services for consideration paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with approval of the first-mentioned person(but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes);

Explanation:- For the purposes of this Clause (i) “commercial purpose” does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purposes of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment.”

          Now it has to be looked into whether the complainant is falling within four corners of definition of customer as defined by the legislatives under Section 2 (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  As per his own allegations, he is insurance Adviser and agent of the S.B.I., Life Insurance.  His prime responsibility is to and indentify the persons to obtain policies of S.B.I., Life Insurance and canvas for its business.  He is not empowered by the opposite parties either to receive cash from policy holders or obtain D.Ds. and send them to concern branches.  Utmost he can guide and assist the policy holders to obtain D.D. or issue cheques towards their premium payments.  If he received any amounts from policy holders either towards purchase of D.Ds., or payment it is defiantly beyond his power.  As seen from the recitals of written version filed.  On behalf of opposite party No.1 most of the D.Ds. are adjusted towards payment of premiums of their respective policies and most of them are surrendered.  When the complainant is making wild allegations against one V.Ravi Raja Reddy the then Branch Manager, S.B.I., Life Insurance, Mahaboob Nagar, for the reasons best known he did not choose to add him as party to these proceedings.  If he was added as party to these proceedings there was likelihood unearthing truth hidden behind those allegations leveled against him.  As rightly submitted by the opposite parties complainant is not a customer of opposite parties within the meaning Section 2 (d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  There is no customer and service provider relationship between the complainant and opposite parties 1 to 4.  Hence the dispute raised by the complainant in the complaint is beyond the preview of this Forum.  Due to it we hold this point against the complainant and in favour of opposite parties.

8.      POINT No.ii:- Section 24 (A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with regard to limitation period:-

(i)       The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

(ii)      Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period;

(Provided that no such complaint shall be entered unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.)

 As seen from allegations of the complaint, the complainant collected the amounts from policy holders and obtained D.Ds. from S.B.I., Pattikonda from 02.07.2009 to 03.03.2010 on various dates for different amounts.  Last transaction is 3^rd March, 2010.  Hence cause of action arose on 03.03.2010.  Complainant not filed any separate application by mentioning sufficient cause for not mentioning the complaint within fixed period of two years from the date of commencement of cause of action.  Basing on the facts placed before this Forum two years period will expire by 03.03.2012.  But the complainant got issued a notice to opposite parties through his counsel on 11.03.2013.  Two years period of limitation prescribed by legislatures under Section 24 (A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 expired long prior to issue of notice.  Hence the plea of complainant that his complaint is within two years from the date of receipt of reply notice from the opposite parties is not sustainable.  If once limitation commences it will run continuously and it will not stop.  Even courts can not extend period unless and until the parties are coming with sufficient reason for the delay.  As already discussed above complainant is not coming before this Forum for extension of period of limitation by assigning sufficient cause or reason for the delay.  We hold that complaint filed by the complainant is beyond the period of limitation and not maintainable. 

9.      POINT No.iii:- In view our finding on points 1 and 2 there is no need to discuss elaborately on this issue.  When there is no customer and service provider relationship between complainant and opposite parties the question of deficiency of service does not arise.  Thus we answered this point accordingly. 

10.     In the result the CC filed by the complainant is dismissed.  We direct both parties to bear their own costs.

          Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 20^th day of March, 2015.

Sd/-                                                                                         Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

         Witnesses Examined

For the complainant:- Nil                     For the opposite parties:- Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.A1          Photo copy of Letter addressed by the Branch Manager dated 03.01.2013.

Ex.A2          Office copy of Legal Notice dated 11.03.2013.

Ex.A3          Postal Receipts (Nos.4)

Ex.A4          Reply Notice dated 06.05.2013. 

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1                   Photo copy of FIR in Crime No.205/2010 dated 02.11.2010.

Ex.B2                   Printed copy of SBI Life Insurance.

Ex.B3                   Photo copy of Proposal Form

Ex.B4                   Photo copy of Proposal Form

Ex.B5                   Letter dated 30.10.2012.

Ex.B6                   Photo copy of Letter dated 30.01.2013.

Ex.B7                   Office copy of Reply Notice dated 06.05.2013. 

          Sd/-                                                                                         Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

     // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties    :

Copy was made ready on                   :

Copy was dispatched on                    :