Orissa

Rayagada

CC/111/2019

Kailash Chandra Sahu - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Axis Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Self

26 Aug 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    COMMISSION,, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 111  / 2019.                                      Date.         26.   8. 2021.

P R E S E N T .

Dr. AswiniKumarMohapatra,                                                President

Sri    SatisKumarPanigrahi,                                          Member.

 

Sri Kailash Chandra Sahu, Resident of Village/Po:Brahmin Street Dist:Rayagada, Pin No.765 019. State:Odisha.

                                                                   ….  Complainant.

Versus.

1.The Branch Manager, Axis Bank Ltd., Rayagada(Odisha).

2.The Manager, Max Insurance Co. Ltd., 11^th. Floor, DLF square, Jacaranda Marg,  DLF Phase-2, Gurgaon- 122002..

3.The Branch Manager, Max house, 3^rd. floor-1, Dr. Jha Marg, Okhal, New Delhi, 110020.

4.The Post Master, Post bag No. 4371, Kalkaji Head post office, New Delhi-110019.

                                                          ..Opposite parties.

For the Complainant:-Self.

For the O.P. No.1:- Sri  K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate, Rayagada.

For the O.Ps 2 &3 :- Sri Ram Prasad Patra, Advocate, Rayagada

For the O.P.No.4:- Set exparte.

                                                JUDGEMENT.

                  

The brief  facts of the case  summarized hereunder. That the  above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non payment of deposited amount towards  policy  No..877462515  for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant. 

The O.Ps 1, 2 & 3   put in their appearance and filed  written version in which  they refuting allegation made against them.  The O.Ps    taking one and another pleas in the written version   and prayer  to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act  and submitted that   the facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.Ps.   Hence the O.Ps 1, 2 & 3  prays the commission to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

On being noticed the O.P No. 4 (Postal Deptt.) was appeared before the Commission  through their  agent.. Thereafter  neither entering in to appear before the commission  nor filed their  written version inspite of more than  15 adjournments had been takenby them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps.  Observing lapses of around 3 years   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  thefrom 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.P No.   4  was 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.

Heard  the case  and  arguments from the learned counsels for the    O.Ps  Sri  K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan and Sri  Ram Prasad Patra    and from the complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

Further  the O.Ps have filed  evidence by way of affidavit  during the course of the hearing.

This commission   examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

The main grievance of the complainant is that  for some other plea  he was unable to  continue the  above policy  further   due to financial   hardship.Hence  prays  direct the O.Ps to  refund  the deposited  amount.  Hence this C.C.   case  filed by the complainant  to get relief.

On the other hand  the O.Ps  in their   written version  contended  that   the case is time barred  be dismissed. 

There  are several    correspondences  were made between the  parties  till  the year 2020 for continuation  of the policy  which are mentioned  by the O.Ps 2 & 3  in their written version.  complainant  during the year 2015   had intimated the O.Ps  as    he was  unable  to deposit  the premium for the year 2015 and to refund  the deposited   amount.    When the O.Ps  had not heard the  grievance of the complainant  the complainant had  field this C.C. case  before this  commission  on Dt.29.10.2019  till the date the O.Ps had not repudiated the claim.     Hence due to made correspondence between the parties   question of  barred of limitation  does not arise.

 

The O.Ps. 2 & 3   (Insurance  Co.) in their written  version  contended that  under the IRDA (Protection of policy holders interest) Regulations, 2002, the policy terms and conditions specifically   provides for a free look period  of 15 days  during which period the policy  owner is entitled to review the policy terms and conditions and request  for a cancellation if dissatisfied with the terms and condition of the policy.The  complainant had not reported for cancelation  of the policy but consequently deposited  two premium amounts.

Further   the complainant had failed to pay the premium amount due on Dt. 29.1.2015   therefore status of said policy  was  changed  to lapse and  same was  also intimated  to the complainant. 

The O.Ps   (Insurance  Co.) in their written  version  contended   that the said policy stood lapsed as per the terms and conditions of the policy  and due to non payment of  renewal premium.  Hence complainant should have no grievance  against the O.Ps(Insurance  Co.) and  no cause of action stands existing and the present complaint is liable to be dismissed due to lack of cause of action.

The  learned counsel  for the O.Ps.   (Insurance Co.)  vehemently advanced arguments on the ground that the complainant after payment of 2(two) numbers   premium  did not pay any renewal premium  and as such not entitled for any claim.  But in this regard there is no any evidence or any intimation to the complainant  herewith  submitted by the O.Ps.

The Ist. Question whether the complainant qualifies to be a Consumer?   The contention that the complaint is not maintainable under the C.P. Act  is longer res integrainview of the decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi  in case of NeelavasantRajeVrs. Amagh Industries and Another  reported  in 1993 (3) CPR page No.343 where in  it has been held that where a company or firm  invites deposits promising attractive rate of interest, it amounts  to rendering  of financial  services as it receives deposits  from customers/consumers and pays interest  therein. The consideration for the  hiring of the service is the payment of deposit  amount  so as to enable the company to invest or utilize the money for  earning profits.  Therefore the deposit holder the complainant  would be a consumer  under the C.P. Act.  Further when a deposit has been accepted to be repaid with interest and admissible  benefits.   It is a service to be rendered and failure  to repay the amount, amounts to deficiency in service under the C.P. Act. The O.Ps (Insurance Co.) in the instant case accepted the deposit and agreed to render service by way of  returning the principal  with  interest and admissible benefits.  The consideration being the   deposit amount. Having regard to the aforesaid circumstances of the case we do not find much force in the contention of the  O.Ps.  as the complaint petition is not maintainable under the C.P. Act.

There is no dispute about the 2(two) numbers yearly premium a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakhs)only  made by the complainant to the O.Ps..  This District commission  perused the papers submitted by the  complainant . On perusal of the  record  this  Commission found  that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs. 1,00,000.00  (Rupees one  lakhs)only  two Nos. yearly premium    in the office of the  O.P.  It is evident  from the  record  filed and  pleadings put  forward that the  O.Ps    had accepted  the deposits promising to  pay  interest and admissible benefits after completion of the tenure  of 20  years  fixing annual  installment of Rs. 50,000/-.  It is their duty to  refund deposited  amount  to the complainant along with interest and admissible benefits failing do so is  an act of  deficiency of service.  In the instant case the complainant  from the  very beginning  not interested to continue  to  invest his money.

As argued by the complainant  in the present case at the time of  proposal form sign the complainant was asked  by the agent  of the O.Ps to  sign on the doted lines without explaining  the benefits of the  scheme and  the entire proposal form was written by the agent in his own hand writing.  The agents responsibility is clearly explained in the IRDA instructions and also U/S- 182 and 212 of the contract act. Here the agents 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 OPs had clearly violated the  norms  issued by the IRDA from time to time and as such the OP No.2(Insurance  Co.) is  liable to refund  the amount paid by the complainant.

In view of the discussion above it is found to be an  unfair  trade practice made by the agent of the  O.Ps.  The O.Ps have introduced the agent to do the unfair deal with the rural and urban people as seen from the Complaint petition and  argument advanced  by him,   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  for livelihood.

The O.Ps are   taking one and another pleas in the written version and had mentioned  a lot of citations of the Apex  courts and   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act.

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  on contest against the O.Ps.2 & 3  (Insurance Co.) and dismissed  against O.P. No.1 (Axis Bank) on contest  and  O.P. No. 4(Postal Deptt.)  on exparte.

The O.Ps. 2 & 3 ( Insurance Co.) are  ordered to  pay surrender value towards the policy  No. 877462515  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       26^th.day  of  August, 2022.

 

Member.                                President.