Sri.Khaja Hussain S/o Ekbal Hussain filed a consumer case on 28 Oct 2009 against The Managing Director,TATA AIG Life Insurance Co.Ltd. in the Raichur Consumer Court. The case no is CC/08/56 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
The Managing Director,TATA AIG Life Insurance Co.Ltd. The Manager/Officer, The Managing Director The Head of Administration, Intigrated Marketing & Research Service
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi, President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Khaja Hussain against Opposite Nos. 1 to 4 U/section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to direct them to return the premium amount collected vide Policy No. C 310365626 dt. 29-11-06 with 2% interest p.a., to pay compensation amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and harassment with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, complainant assured his life by taking Maha Life Gold Policy from the opposites Insurance Company bearing policy No. C-310365626 dt. 30-11-06 for assured sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with its maturity date on 29-11-2048 and it was renewed by paying premium on 10-05-07, he paid premium amount to one Nazeem Sherrif who is an authorized agent of opposites, the policy was also issued by him on behalf of opposites. Later on he heard the misappropriation of premium amount of others by the said Nazeen Sherrif, therefore he requested the opposites to return the premium amount, as he is not interested to continue his policy. But opposites show their negligence in returning the premium amount, inspite of oral and written requests and thereby all the opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services and therefore he filed this complaint for the reliefs as noted in his complaint. 3. Opposite Nos- 1 & 2 appeared in this case through their Advocate, filed written version. Opposite Nos. 3 & 4 remained Ex-parte. The brief facts of the written version of opposite No- 1 & 2 are that, Nazeem Sherrif is not an authorized agent of their Insurance Company and he was not authorized to collect the premium from the policyholder on behalf of the Insurance Company. The premium amount not received from him accordingly they are not liable to pay any amount to the complainant. Other allegations made by the complainant are specifically denied and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, he assured his life by taking Maha Life Gold Policy floated by opposite insurance company bearing Policy No. C-310365626 dt. 30-11-06 for assured sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- with its maturity date as on 29-11-2048 and the said policy was renewed by paying premium amount of Rs. 4,898/- vide receipt dt. 10-05-07 to the authorized agent of opposites by name Nazeem Sherriff, later on he came to know the misappropriation done by said Nazeem Sherriff therefore he requested the opposites to return the premium amount collected by Nazeem Sherriff but opposites shown their negligence in returning the said amount, inspite of repeated requests and thereby all opposites found guilty under deficiency in their services.? 2. Whether complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in his complaint.? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In Negative. (2) In Negative. (3) In-view of the findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 6. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed, he was noted as PW-1, documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-9 are marked. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of the authorized representative of opposite Nos. 1 & 2 was filed he was noted as RW-1 and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-6 are marked. 7. By going through the pleadings of the parties, their respective evidences and documents relied by them, we are of the view that the only one short point that arise for our consideration is as to whether Nazeen Sherriff who collected the premium amount from the complainant and issued policy to him is an authorized agent on behalf of the opposites and thereby these opposites are liable to pay the premium amount collected by Nazeem Sherriff from the customers. If our answer is Yes to the said point then by complainant is entitled to get some reliefs from these opposites, if our answer to that point is No then the complainant is not entailed for any one of the reliefs as prayed in his complaint. 8. In support of the case of complainant the learned advocate for complainant relied on two rulings which are noted as under:- (I) 2007 CPJ 221 NC Allahabad Bank V/s. Shiv Swarup Shrivastav and (2) 2004 CPJ (II) 27. 9. The learned advocate for complainant in reference to the rulings referred above, contended before us that Nazeem Sherriff who is an authorized agent to collect premium on behalf of opposites might have misappropriated the fund collected by him, as such the opposites are vicariously liable to pay the amount collected from the complainant. 10. For better appreciation the case of the parties, we have referred two rulings reported in 2009 CTJ 406 (CP) NCDRC Life Insurance Corporation of India V/s. Giridharilal.P. Keshavani and another and (2) VIII 2009 (III) 229 Golamadevi V/s. Life Insurance Corporation of India. 11. In the said two rulings their lordships of the Honble National Commission held as an agent of insurance company has no authority to accept the premium on behalf of LIC and if agent misappropriation the premium amount then LIC would not be made liable to pay it. 12. Keeping in view of the principles of rulings referred above, we have appreciated the case of parties as evidenced by the complainant, one Nazeem Sherriff said to be an agent of opposites collected premium and issued LIC policy and also he received premium for renewal of the policy. Opposites are contending that the said Nazeen Sherriff is not an authorized agent to collect the premium on behalf of them. 13. On perusal of the documents produced by the complainant, it is a fact that the said Nazeem Sherriff is not an authorized agent to collect the premium amount on behalf of the opposites LIC, he might be the agent of opposite LIC but he was not an authorized to collect premium from the complainant pr from any other customers on behalf of the opposites. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that principles of the rulings referred by the learned advocate for complainant are different to the facts of the present case on hand, vicarious liability cannot be fastened to the opposites of this case for the reasons that the said Nazeem Sherriff is not an employee or authorized agent to collect the premium on behalf of them. In the said circumstances complainant cannot claim any kind of reliefs against these opposites, he is at be liberty to get recover the said premium amount from the Nazeem Sherriff only before competent Civil Court not in this Forum, accordingly we not find any deficiency in service on the part of these opposites, accordingly we answered Point No.1 in Negative. 14. In view of our finding on Point No-1, complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in his complaint, accordingly we answered Point No-2 in negative. POINT NO.3:- 15. In view of our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant against all the opposites is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 28-10-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.