THE DISTRICT CONSUMAR DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM No.419, Ist Floor,. H.N. Gowda Building, M.B.Road, Kolar-563101 consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/96
N.Sathyanarayana Setty
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Manager
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
CC Filed on 11.11.2008 Disposed on 15.09.2009 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 15th day of September 2009 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No. 96/2008 Between: N. Sathyanarayana Setty, S/o. Late Narayana Setty, Aged about 60 Years, PIGME Deposit Collector, R/o. ING Vysya Bank Ltd., M.C. Road, Mulbagal. (By Advocate Sri. M. Varada Reddy & others) V/S 1. The Manager, ING Vysya Bank Ltd., T.A.P.C.M.S. Buildings, M.C. Road, Mulbagal. 2. The Manager, ING Vysya Life Insurance Corporation Ltd., Reg. No. 114, ING Vysya House, 5th Floor, No. 22, M.G. Road, Bangalore 560 001. (By Advocate Sri. B.C. Subbarajasetty & others) .Complainant .Opposite Parties ORDERS This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- and damages of Rs.5,400/- by way of interest for the wrongful withholding of Rs.10,000/- and further to pay Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony with costs and interest, etc., 2. The material facts alleged in the complaint may be stated as follows: That the complainant has two daughters and one daughter is married to one Ramesh Babu and another daughter is married to one Murali. Ramesh Babu has two minor daughters by name Bhavya and Kavya. Murali has one minor son by name Eshwar. That the OP.1 bank started Ing Vysya Life Insurance Corporation. The complainant has been working as Pigmy Collector for OP.1. The complainant for the welfare of his grand children namely Bhavya, Kavya and Eshwar intended to obtain life insurance policies with OPs and for that purpose with consultation of OP.1 he purchased three DDs each for Rs.10,000/- on 27.09.2007 from OP.1 payable to OP.2 towards first premium for getting three insurance policies in favour of his grandchildren. Further that thereafter he forwarded the said DDs with all particulars required for obtaining three policies to OP.2 and that subsequently the DDs were encashed by OP.2. It is alleged that after long delay of five months he obtained two policies in favour of Bhavya and Kavya, but did not receive any policy in respect of Eshwar. Even he did not receive back the first premium amount of Rs.10,000/- paid towards that policy. Subsequently he got issued the legal notice dated 10.09.2008 to OP.1 for which he received reply stating that issuance of the policies will be entertained by OP.2 and thereby denying its liability for issue of policies or for its delay. The grievance of the complainant is that two policies were issued after lapse of five months and another policy was not at all issued or the premium paid towards it was not returned. Therefore he filed the complaint on 11.01.2008. 3. OP.1 appeared and in his version admitted the purchase of three DDs for Rs.10,000/- each drawn on Bangalore Branch favouring OP.2 and that after issue of these three DDs the complainant collected the said DDs and acknowledged the receipt of the same. Further that the role of this OP is restricted to issuance of DDs based on the requisition of the complainant and this opponent cannot be held responsible for issuance of policies which is entirely concerned to OP.2. It is also stated that on verification of the records it was found that all the three DDs obtained by complainant were still unpaid till date. The version was filed on 02.03.2009. 4. OP.2 contended that it has not received any DD alleged to have been sent by complainant and it had not received any proposal forms or other papers alleged to have been sent by complainant. Further it contended that it had received two proposals dated 10.01.2008 relating to minors Bhavya and Kavya submitted by their father Ramesh Babu and it has issued premium deposit acknowledgement dated 24.01.2008 for having received the two cheques dated 25.09.2007 drawn on Vysya Bank Limited, Bangalore Branch for Rs.10,000/- each and that the proposals were processed and policies were issued with effect from 13.02.2008 relating to Bhavya and Kavya on realization of first premium amount. It has further stated that another proposal dated 10.01.2008 was received from Murali the father of minor Eshwar along with cheque dated 01.10.2007 drawn on Vysya Bank Limited, Bangalore Branch for Rs.10,000/- for which premium deposit acknowledgement dated 24.01.2008 was issued. Further that certain particulars required, were asked to be furnished by Murali, but he failed to furnish those particulars and thereby the policy was not issued and the first premium amount of Rs.10,000/- realized for issue of policy was returned to Murali through cheque dated 09.04.2008 drawn on Ing Vysya Bank Limited, M.G. Road, Bangalore and unfortunately the letter sent under RPAD with this cheque was not served on the addressee and it was returned to sender. It stated that it has no objection for repayment of Rs.10,000/- to Murali. It has contended that there is no privity of contract between complainant and OP.2 and this OP.2 is in no way answerable to him. Therefore it prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 5. In view of the version filed by OP.1 he was asked not to appear in these proceedings unless further intimation was given for his appearance. OP.1 filed necessary documents in support of his version. The complainant and OP.2 filed affidavits supporting their respective contentions. They also filed the documents. 6. We heard the Learned Counsel for complainant and OP.2. 7. The documents produced disclose that the complainant had purchased three DDs dated 27.09.2007 for Rs.10,000/- each from OP.1 payable to Ing Vysya Life Insurance Co. Ltd., (OP.2) drawn on Ing Vysya Bank Limited, RCC Bangalore. The complainant acknowledged in writing the receipt of these three DDs. The complainant has not produced any document to evidence that these three DDs with proposal forms were forwarded to OP.2. In this regard there is only the oral evidence of complainant. As already noted OP.2 denied the receipt of DDs or any proposal forms alleged to have been sent by complainant. The complainant had not issued any letter or notice to OP.2 making any enquiry regarding the sending of DDs or proposals. Therefore we may hold that the DDs and proposals were not actually sent by complainant personally and it appears he must have handed it over to some third person for obtaining the policies. The documents produced by OP.2 establish that two proposals and two cheques were received from Ramesh Babu and another proposal and one cheque were received from Murali for obtaining insurance policies in favour of minors Bhavya, Kavya and Eshwar. It is an admitted fact that two policies were issued in favour of Bhavya and Kavya and another policy was not issued in favour of Eshwar for non-compliance of furnishing further particulars. OP.2 has also produced document to show that the cheque for Rs.10,000/- dated 09.04.2008 was sent along with covering letter to Murali. OP.2 has not produced any document to show that it had called for further particulars from Murali and that the cheque and covering letter were sent to Murali under RPAD. Even in the absence of these documents we hold that the case of OP.2 in this respect can be accepted. The perusal of the proposal forms submitted by Ramesh Babu and Murali shows that these proposals were channeled through OP.1 and Insurance Advisor by name K.S. Chandrashekar (advisor code 60021021). It could not be ascertained from the documents who had drawn the three cheques drawn on Vysya Bank Limited for Rs.10,000/- each accompanying these three proposals. We asked the Learned Counsel for OP.2 to ascertain the drawer of these cheques, but he did not furnish any particulars. OP.2 states that all these three cheques were realized towards first premium and the amount from two cheques were adjusted towards first premium in respect of the policies issued in favour of Bhavya and Kavya and the amount of Rs.10,000/- still remains with it in respect of other proposal which was rejected by it for want of further particulars. OP.1 has confirmed that the three DDs dated 27.09.2007 drawn in favour of OP.2 are still outstanding and these three DDs were not realized. Further OP.2 contended that it had not at all received these DDs alleged to have been sent by complainant. Therefore we secured Ramesh Babu and Murali before the Forum and they submitted that they had not paid any amount towards first premium either in cash or through cheque or DD. But they admitted that they had signed the proposals and further they submitted that some Insurance Agent/Advisor filled up the proposal forms and took their signatures. From the above facts it appears some unknown person issued three cheques for Rs.10,000/- each submitted with three proposal forms for obtaining the policies in favour of minors. Our efforts failed to find out from whose account these three cheques were issued and who had actually signed those cheques. The receipt of two policies stated by complainant are the very same policies issued in favour of Bhavya and Kavya and their father Ramesh Babu stated that he is in actual custody of these two policies. If OP.2 had taken pain it could have ascertained who actually issued these cheques and from whose account Rs.30,000/- was realized and credited to it. That pain is not taken inspite of our repeated reminders. Either OP.1 or OP.2 did not produce the guidelines prescribed for securing the proposals from different parties and the responsibility of Bank channeling the proposal and the rights and duties of Insurance Advisor. We also made efforts to secure the presence of Insurance Advisor K.S. Chandrashekar, but the parties could not give his present address. It appears he is the right person to solve the problem who actually paid Rs.30,000/- in respect of these three proposals. It appears no third person has come forward till this time claiming the amount of Rs.30,000/- realized by OP.2 under three cheques received by it with three proposals. In the above facts and circumstances we hold that the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency on the part of OP.1 or OP.2 for want of proper materials. The claim of complainant that OP.1 started OP.2 may not be correct. It appears the OP.1 and OP.2 are independent legal persons. The complainant has not produced any document to show that OP.1 had a duty to perform in obtaining the insurance policies when a customer purchases a DD from it for obtaining insurance policy from OP.2. 8. In the above facts and circumstances we think the proper order to be passed in the present case is to return the amount paid by complainant for obtaining the three policies. Admittedly complainant purchased three DDs each for Rs.10,000/-. OP.1 Bank cannot retain this amount for any length of time in case the DDs are not realized. The amount should be paid either to the person who purchased the DDs or to the person in whose favour they are payable. In the present case the three DDs are payable to OP.2. But OP.2 does not claim any legal right to realize these three DDs. Therefore we hold that the best person for the present to get back the amount covered under these three DDs is the complainant. In respect of the amount repayable by OP.2 to Murali we need not pass any order in the present complaint though OP.2 has no objection for repaying this amount to Murali, as Murali has not filed any complaint or he did not make a claim before us. Complainant submitted that he is not having the three original DDs with him. We think even in the absence of original DDs the OP.1 may be directed to pay the amount after following the guidelines if any for repayment of DD amount to the purchaser who lost the DDs which are outstanding. For the above reasons we pass the following: O R D E R The Ing Vysya Bank Limited (OP.1) shall return Rs.30,000/- representing the unpaid DDs dated 27.09.2007 purchased by complainant within 30 days from the date of this order after following the guidelines prescribed if any for repayment of DDs amount to the purchaser who lost the DDs which are outstanding. The parties shall bear their own costs. Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 15th day of September 2009. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
