The fact of the case of the complainant is that the complainant has Savings Account no.436210100000154 with the Op no.1 /Bank . On or about 1.12.2009 complainant approached the Op no.1 for a fixed deposit of Rs.50,000/- . Op no.1 told complainant that he was investing the said amount in better scheme which would yield much interest that F.D. The cheque was deposited and returned home thinking that deposition has been made in Bank of India, Kanaria branch. After some days complainant received a policy certificate from Star Union Dai-lchi Life Insurance. Complainant at once went to Op no.1 and raised objection against such policy . On October 2014, the complainant came to know from the Star Union Dai Ichi Life Insurance that fund value of his policy is Rs.69,410/- and receiving the said letter complainant met the OP no.1 . Op no.1 told the complainant that they have invested this amount and requested to release the amount in favour of the complainant and credit the same amount in his Savings Bank account. Op no.1 took the original policy and other documents from the complainant and took signature of the complainant on other forms. On 18.3.2015 complainant came to know that Rs.23,254.62 has been credited in his Savings Bank account but on this point Op no.1 did not give satisfactory answer. It is
stated that taking the innocence and illiteracy the Op no.1 wrongly invested the amount to Op no.2/Insurance company an unknown Insurance Company for wrongful gain . In this way the OP no.1 and 2 caused financial loss of the complainant and Ops are liable to pay maturity amount to the complainant. The Ops are holding Rs.46,155/- after 6.10.2014. Accordingly, the case has been filed for redressal as per prayer.
The OP contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the Op no.1 is that complainant has made a false, frivolous, cock and bull story only for the purpose of litigation and for drawing sympathy of the Hon’ble Forum. The version of the complaint is complainant’s own version for the purpose of file the instant case and the present bank manager of the Opp.Party no.1, bank does not have any knowledge about the alleged incident as at the relevant time the present branch manager of the bank was not posted at Kanaria Branch. For the foregoing reason the present answering Opp party no.1 refrains from making any comment. However the complainant has to prove the allegations. That it is not possible for Opp. Party no.1 to say about the truthfulness of the alleged statements of the complainant as the present branch manager of the bank was not posted at that time as alleged
by the complainant and the complainant has not divulged the identity of the person to whom he went allegedly described as the manager of Bank of India, Kanaria Branch. That as alleged by the complainant op no.1 assuring the complainant to credit the amount payable to him in his savings bank account, took the original policy and other documents from the complainant and took signature of the complainant on so many forms is not within the knowledge of the oP no.1, as at the relevant time the oP no.1 was not posted in the bank and as such question of receiving document and assuring the complainant of depositing the alleged invested sum to the Savings bank account of the complainant does not arise. That as alleged by the complainant that on 17.7.2015 the complainant approached the op no.1 to receive a letter from him written in Bengali but the oP no.1 did not receive the same and wrote on the same letter in his hand writing that he does not understand Bengali language and intimated the complainant of putting in jail is far from truth, as the present bank manager i.e. opno.1 joined the bank on 24.7.2015 from Varanasi, UP and therefore question of any interaction by and between the complainant and present bank manager does not arise. The OP no.1 prays for dismissal of the case.
Op no.2 contested the case denying inter alia all material allegations . The positive case of the Op no.2 is that the Company herein has acted strictly as per the mandate provided to it by the complainant in the proposal form and issued the insurance policy in conformity with the insurance proposal received by it. That the company received the duly filled and signed proposal form of the complainant and as per the mandate given in the form, issued the said policies believing what is stated in the proposal form to be true and correct. As per the proposal, the company issued the subject Policy bearing no.00079990 dated 15.12.2009. The complainant was very well aware that he was taking the said policies as he himself affixed his signature on the proposal forms and has admitted the same in his complaint. It is further submitted that the respondent company had prior to the maturity of the policy, had vide its letter dated 6.10.2014 informed the complainant that the policy would vest on 15.12.2014 and requested the complainant to opt for annuity option. The complainant submitted all the required forms for processing the annuity amount. The maturity value as on date of vesting was Rs.70,468.55. The company according process the payment of Rs.23254.62 as admitted by the complainant in his compliance and the balance of 2/3rd i.e. Rs.47213/- was paid by cheque in favour of LIC of India as opted by the
complainant. The complainant has not encashed the said cheque. The respondent company is willing to reprocess the said cheque in favour of LIC.
Complainant filed photo copy of Pension Maturity information dt. 6.10.14, Advocate’s notice , copy of registry slip dt 7.4.16 , copy of letter sent to the Branch Manager by Arun Kumar Pal, BOI, Kanaria branch, Copy of letter send by the complainant to General Manager, BOI, copy of information sent by BOI, Kanaria Branch, copy of acknowledgement/policy no.0079990 of Star Union Dai Ichi Life Insurance . Complainant also filed Evidence in chief and WNA. Op no.1 filed original copy of Maturity claim Discharge voucher along with brochure. Both the Ops filed Evidence in chief and Written Notes of Arguments.
POINTS FOR DECISION :
1)Whether the complainant is a consumer ?
2)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
3)Whether the complainant/petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
All the points are taken together for easiness of discussion.
In evidence in chief complainant has stated that he went to the Op no.1 /Bank for FD but Op no.1 misrepresented him and diverted the money deposited
in Savings account to purchase Star Union policy . In this way, he has accused the oP no.1 for misleading him and diverting his fund. But in a letter dated 17.7.2015 complainant has written a letter to the Branch Manager, Bank of India, Kanaria, Hooghly that he purchased one Star Union Die chi policy no.00079990DHRTARA purchased by him and the tenure of that policy has completed on 15.12.2014. The original policy have taken by some one of Bank for which the complainant prays one photocopy of the policy. This letter is in hand writing of the complainant and signed by the complainant in English. Later on by another letter dated 14.8.2015 the complainant has written again letter to General Manager, Bank of India that Branch Manager did not make fixed deposit but purchased that policy . Such two letters are itself contradictory. The Advocate’s letter has written in accordance with the letter dated 14.8.2015 . This signature and hand writing i.e. letter of the complainant shows that he is educated man. Further it is not his case that he is illiterate person and he went to the Bank with another person for making Fixed Deposit. No evidence to that effect has come before this Forum. On the other hand, Op no.1 and 2 stated on oath and by document that the complainant purchased the policy as stated by him in the letter dated 17.7.2015 from Op no.2 and complainant has Savings Bank account with Op no.1 . After maturity some
-8-
value has been deposited in the Savings Bank account and Op no.2 further deposited or returned the remaining value of the policy after request of the complainant . The Op no.1 also stated that complainant with his own accord has purchased the policy of Op no.2 for more gain and complainant invested Rs.50,000/- on his own accord and by putting signature and that has been done in the year 1.12.2009 and on 17.7.2015 complainant has written the letter to Op no.1 and after that complainant informed Op no.1 on 14.8.2015 i.e. after long six years and that too after maturity period. The amount was invested by the complainant for profit . Op no . 2 stated that complainant’s case is nothing but complete investment and does not come with the purview of Consumer Protection Act.
We have gone through the documentary evidence and oral evidence and letter dated 17.7.2015 which goes to show that the complainant invested the amount in purchasing the policy from Op no.2 knowing fully well the risk condition of the policy and gain. There is no evidence that complainant was misrepresented by Op no.1. So after a deliberation over the case of both sides we are fully convinced that complainant was wrongly instructed to take the recourse of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegation noted hereinbefore without any
positive oral , documentary , credible evidence and thus the case stands fails. Hence it is -
Ordered
That the CC no. 132 of 2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
