Complaint No: 98 of 2023.

                                                          Date of Institution: 11.05.2023.

                                                                   Date of order: 12.12.2023.

Harsh Kumar aged about 53 years S/o Sh. Bodh Raj resident of House No. 23/365 near Civil Hospital Diamond Colony Batala  and Proprietor of M/s Marwaha Associates, Jalandhar Road, Batala, District Gurdaspur.

                                                                                                                                                               …...........Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

                                                                                           VERSUS

1.       Yes Bank, Jalandhar Road, Batala – 143505, through its Branch Manager.

2.       Reliance General Insurance, SCO 122, 2nd Floor, Ranjit Avenue, Opposite Amritsar Improvement Trust Complex, Circular Road, Amritsar – 144001, through its Managing Director / Principal Officer / Manager / Authorized Person.

                                                                                                                                                                       ….Opposite parties.

                                Complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) 2019.

Present: For the Complainant: Sh.Rajiv Kaura, Advocate.

              For the Opposite Party No.1: Sh.Vishesh Kumar, Advocate.  

               For the Opposite Party No.2: Sh.Sandeep Ohri, Advocate. 

Quorum: Sh.Lalit Mohan Dogra, President, Sh.Bhagwan Singh Matharu, Member.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President.

          Harsh Kumar, Complainant (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against Yes Bank Etc. (here-in-after referred to as 'opposite parties).

2.       Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant obtained the Cash Credit Limit of Rs.60 Lakhs from the opposite party No. 1 in September, 2022. It is pleaded that the complainant never availed any loan from the said Cash Credit Limit from the bank i.e. the opposite party No. 1. It is pleaded that the complainant is covered within the definition of Consumer Protection Act as the complainant is not generating any profit from the alleged insurance obtained by the opposite party No.1 from the opposite party No. 2 keeping the complainant in dark. It is further pleaded that at the time of availing the Cash Credit Limit the officials of opposite party No. 1 obtained the signatures of the complainant on many already printed forms and blank forms and the complainant signed thereon having the trust on the officials of the opposite party No. 1. It is further pleaded that the complainant never obtained any loan from the opposite party No. 1 at any point of time. It is pleaded that the complainant never obtained the Insurance from the opposite party No. 2 and the complainant never went to Amritsar for the insurance policy in question from the opposite party No. 2 and as submitted above the opposite party No. 1 obtained the signatures of the complainant on blank papers and blank printed forms. It is further pleaded that the opposite party No. 1 started deducting the amounts of Rs.3,367.44/Rs.5,218.34/- per month from the accounts of the complainant and on enquiry it revealed that the officials of the opposite party No. 1 have purchased the insurance on the loan amount from the opposite party No. 2 and have paid the premium of Rs.3,97,033/- without the knowledge and consent of the complainant. It is further pleaded that the opposite party No. 1 prepared and forged the letter head of the firm of the complainant whereas the complainant never issued or signed any consent letter for the insurance from the opposite party No. 2. As such the opposite parties have committed the fraud and forgery with the complainant in order to fulfill the target of the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 amounting to deficiency of service. It is further pleaded that the insurance obtained by the opposite party No. 1 from the opposite party No. 2 in the name of complainant on the alleged loan is illegal, unlawful, sham, ineffective, inoperative, null and void, void abinitio and is not sustainable in any circumstance what so ever and has got no binding force on the rights of the complainant. It is further pleaded that the deduction of installments of the alleged premium paid by the opposite party No. 1 to the opposite party No. 2 is also wrong, incorrect, illegal, high handed and unwarranted in nature and is liable to be stayed forthwith and the deduction already made by the opposite party No. 1 from the account of the complainant is liable to be reimbursed/refunded to the complainant with interest thereon. It is further pleaded that the further deduction of monthly installments premium from the accounts of the complainant on the allegedly paid by the opposite party No. 1 to the opposite party No. 2 is liable to be stayed and in case the further deduction detailed above is not stayed, the very purpose of the present complaint would be forfeited leading to many complications and multiplicity of proceedings. It is pleaded that the separate application for granting the stay of the deduction of the monthly installments from the accounts of the complainant for the alleged payment of the premium by the opposite party No. 1 to the opposite party No. 2 is also being filed alongwith the complaint. It is pleaded that the due to this illegal act and conduct of the opposite parties the complainant has suffered great loss and also suffered mental agony, Physical harassment and inconvenience. It is pleaded that the there is a clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

          On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has alleged deficiency and negligence in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties and prayed that necessary directions may kindly be issued to the opposite parties to cancel the insurance policy illegally issued in the name of the complainant by the opposite parties in connivance with each other and to stop making the deduction of monthly installments from the account of the complainant and also to reimburse/refund the amount of already deducted installments from the account of the complainant with interest thereon at the rate of 18% with effect from the above said deductions and to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant by the opposite parties and Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant, in the interest of justice.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the present Complaint is false, vexatious and has been filed with a malafide intention to harass the Opposite Party No.1 by misusing the process of law and to avail undue advantages. It is pleaded that it is an attempt to waste the precious time of this Hon’ble Commission as no cause of action has arisen against the answering Opposite Party No.1 and in favour of the Complainant hence, this complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is pleaded that the Present Complaint is not maintainable against the Opposite Party No.1 and the same is liable to be dismissed. It is pleaded that the Complainant is a proprietor of the firm Marwaha Associates ('the Firm'). As per the records of the Opposite Party No.1, the Firm was sanctioned an Overdraft Facility of Rs.75 Lacs and a Term Loan Facility of Rs.5 Lacs by the answering Opposite Party No.1 vide Facility Letter dated 19.07.2022, which was duly accepted by the Complainant in its capacity as proprietor of the Firm. It is further pleaded that one of the conditions stipulated in the said Facility Letter were that the Complainant has to obtain an Insurance Policy for Loan Protection in favour of the Bank on their current assets and on the mortgaged property. It is pleaded that the as per the Facility Letter, the Term Loan of Rs.5 Lacs was sanctioned for the purpose of payment of premium to the Opposite Party No. 2, of such Insurance Policies and the Opposite Party No. 1 will then debit the Firm's current account for realizing Equated Monthly Installments (EMIs') towards the Term Loan already disbursed. It is further pleaded that accordingly, the Complainant and the Guarantor (Sunil Kumar) purchased Loan Protection Policy under which three Insurance Policies were availed from the Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Insurance Certificate No. 200392229331000145, Insurance certificate No. 200392229511001615 in his name and one Insurance Policy Nо.20039222951001614 in the name of Guarantor Sunil Kumar in order to protect its Loan in favour of the Opposite Party No. 1 upon its Current Assets and Mortgaged Property. It is further pleaded that in accordance with the Facility Letter, the Opposite Party No. 1 disbursed an amount of Rs.3,97,033/- to the Opposite Party No. 2 for payment of premium towards the Insurance Policies. It is pleaded that the Opposite Party No. 1 then debited the EMI’s of the Term Loan from the current account of the Firm, as evidenced from the statement of account annexed with this reply. It is further pleaded that the Insurance Policies in question were purchased by the Complainant himself by execution of the Proposal form in favour of the Opposite Party No. 2, which specifically bears the signatures of the Complainant. It is further pleaded that the Insurance Policies in question were purchased by the Complainant from the Opposite Party No. 2 with his own free will after understanding the terms and conditions of the policies in question and signed the declaration in this regard as mentioned in the Proposal form. Moreover, it is the Complainant who himself authorized the Opposite Party No. 2 to deduct the premium amount paid by the Opposite Part No. 1, directly from the account of the Complainant by execution of the Letter of Debit Authorization dated 13.09.2022. It is pleaded that  now the Complainant cannot claim that the Policies in question were not purchased by him and are not in his knowledge. It is pleaded that the present Complaint is liable to be dismissed being false one. It is further pleaded that the Complainant has not come before the Hon’ble Commission with clean hands and the Complainant is estopped by his own acts and conducts from filing the present Complaint. It is further pleaded that at the very outset the answering Opposite Party denies the contentions, averments made by the Complainant as the same are baseless and without any merit and the Complainant be put to strict proof of the same and submit that the complaint deserves to be dismissed. It is further pleaded that the present complaint contains intricate and complicated questions of facts and law and voluminous evidence is required by the Hon'ble Court to reach at the just and final conclusion and thus the application should be relegated to its remedy before the Civil Court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of grievances of the Complainant.

          On merits, the opposite party No.1 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

4.       Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint and filing their written reply by taking the preliminary objections that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is pleaded that in the present complaint, the complainant is leveling serious allegations of fraud and forgery which cannot be decided in summary way. It is pleaded that the proper remedy for deciding such types of allegations is Civil Court and it needs evidence in detail and cannot be decided in a summary way. It is pleaded that the the present complaint is liable to be dismissed and there is no deficiency in services on the part of the insurance company / OP No.2 i.e. Reliance General Insurance Company. It is further pleaded that there is no fraud or manipulation from the end of the insurance company. It is pleaded that the proposal form has been duly signed by the insured and the documents are filled by the customer in his consciousness and by his own will and knowledge. Also that the answering OP No. 2 has no direct link with the customer and it is the bank who solicits the policies to the customer and only at their will it is sold to them. No fraud has been done by the answering opposite party. It is pleaded that the story made in the present complaint is totally false and frivolous. It is further pleaded that the insurance company further wants to submit that the act and conduct of the complainant by not lodging any protest to the company regarding the wrongly issuance of the policy clearly shows that the story made by the complainant in the present complaint is false and frivolous. It is pleaded that the complainant is making false excuses and the complaint is liable to be dismissed and the present complaint of the complainant is not within limitation.

          On merits, the opposite party No.2 have reiterated their stand as taken in legal objections and denied all the averments of the complaint and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. In the end, the opposite party prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs. 

5.       Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of Harsh Kumar, (Complainant) as Ex.CW-1/A alongwith other documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5.

6.       Learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Kamaldeep Singh, (Relationship Manager, Yes Bank Ltd., Batala Branch) as Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP-1/11 alongwith reply.

7.       Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Suryadeep Singh Thakur, (Authorized Signatory, Reliance Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd., Chandigarh) as Ex.OPW-2/A alongwith other documents as Ex.OP-2/1 to Ex.OP-2/2 alongwith reply.

8.       Rejoinder filed by the complainant.

9.       Written arguments not filed by the parties.                            

10.     Counsel for the complainant has argued that complainant had obtained cash credit limit of Rs.60 Lakhs from opposite party No.1 in September 2022 and never availed loan from the said cash credit limit. It is further argued that at the time of availing the limit officials of opposite party No.1 obtained signatures of the complainant on various blank forms. It is further argued that complainant had never obtained any loan from opposite party No.1 and had also never obtained any insurance from opposite party No.2. It is further argued that opposite party No.1 started deducting amounts of Rs.3367.44, Rs.5218.34 per month from the account of the complainant and on enquiry it was disclosed that opposite party No.1 had purchased the insurance on the loan amount from opposite party No.2 and had paid premium of Rs.3,97,033/- without the knowledge of the complainant. It is further argued that opposite party No.1 has prepared and forged the letter head of the firm of the complainant and it is clear cut case of fraud and forgery on behalf of officials of opposite parties No.1 and 2 and it also amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. In the end counsel for the complainant has prayed that opposite parties be directed to cancel the insurance policies and to stop deducting installments from the account of the complainant and refund the already received amount alongwith compensation for harassment.

11.     On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 has argued that complainant was sanctioned overdraft facility of  Rs.75 Lac and a term loan facility of Rs.5 Lacs by opposite party No.1 vide facility letter dated 19.07.2022. It is further argued that one of the conditions stipulated in the facility letter were that the complainant has to obtain a insurance policy for loan protection in favour of the bank of their current assessts and on the mortgage property. It is further argued that term loan of Rs.5 Lacs was sanctioned for the purpose of payment of premium to opposite party No.2 of such insurance policies and in accordance with facility letter, opposite party No.1 disbursed an amount of Rs.3,97,033/- to opposite party No.2 for payment of premium and then debited the EMIs of the term loan form the current account of the firm. It is further argued that complainant himself executed proposal form in favour of opposite party No.2 with his signatures with his own free will and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

12.     Counsel for the opposite party No.2 has argued that the complainant has leveled serious allegations of fraud and forgery and as such this Commission has no jurisdiction. It is further argued that proposal form was duly filled and signed by the complainant with his own free will and knowledge and the policies are solicited by the bank to the customer and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2.

13.     We have heard the Ld. counsels for the parties and gone through the record.

14.     It is admitted fact that complainant has availed overdraft facility of Rs.75 Lacs from opposite party No.1. It is further admitted fact that opposite party No.1 has facilitated policies of insurance from opposite party No.2 for loan protection in favour of the bank. The only disputed issue before this Commission for adjudication is whether the policy of insurance was obtained by the bank without the knowledge of the complainant.

15.     To prove his case complainant has placed on record his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW-1/A, copy of proposal form Ex.C1, copy of letter of debit authorization Ex.C2, copy of letter dated 10.03.2023 Ex.C3, copy of letter to opposite party No.1 Ex.C4, copy of statement of account Ex.C5 whereas on the other hand opposite party No.1 has placed on record copy of resolution Ex.OP-1/1, copy of reliance home loan protect policy Ex.OP-1/2 and Ex.OP-1/3, copy of proposal form Ex.OP-1/6, copy of letter of debit authorization Ex.OP-1/7 alongwith other documents.

16.     Perusal of Ex.OP-1/11 credit facility letter shows that overdraft facility of Rs.75 Lacs has been sanctioned in favour of the complainant and is duly signed by the complainant. Perusal of account statement Ex.OP-1/10 shows that the opposite party No.1 started deducting premium from the account of the complainant and the complainant was aware about the deductions of said premium from the very beginning but the complainant had chosen to keep mum upto 10.03.2023 and complainant had for the first time written letter to the opposite party No.1. Perusal of letter of debit authorization Ex.C2 shows that complainant has signed said letter Ex.C2 alongwith stamp of his firm and in the column of subject debit authorization mandent/payment of insurance premium is clearly written, meaning thereby that the complainant was having knowledge about the deductions of the premium from the very inseption as it is not the case of the complainant that the complainant is a illiterate and was not aware as on which documents the complainant has put his signatures. As far as signing of proposal form is concerned. Perusal of Ex.C1 shows that complainant has placed on record two pages of  proposal form which is not signed by the complainant at any place. However, on the other hand opposite party No.1 has placed on record complete proposal form Ex.OP-1/6 which is duly signed by the complainant on all the required columns and the said columns are also signed by the guarantor Sunil Kumar, the proposal form is on the letter head of opposite party No.2 which shows that the complainant had voluntarily signed the proposal form for securing the loan and the plea of fraud and forgery on the part of complainant after lapse of considerable time and deductions of installments seems to be after though. As such from the evidence on record and facts narrated above we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

17.     As such present complaint being without merit is ordered to be dismissed with no order as to costs.             

18.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.  

                               (Lalit Mohan Dogra)

                                                                         President   

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

Dec. 12, 2023                                                Member

*YP*