State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. The Manager, Shriram Chit Funds, vs Smt. Sujatha Bakshi on 24 May, 2022
Before the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission
(constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)
of Telangana, Eruvaka
Building, Khairathabad at Hyderabad
FA NO.56 OF 2016 AGAINST CC NO.46 OF
2014
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT COMMISSION, ADILABAD
Between:
1) The Manager,
Shriram Chit Funds,
Adilabad.
2) Anupama Annawajala
W/o Dayasagar, aged : Major,
Occ: Agent of Shriram Chit Funds
Pvt., Ltd.,
C/o O/o Shriram Chits, Adilabad.
3) Shriram Life Insurance Company Ltd.,
Rep. by its Authorized Person,
Plot No.31 & 32, fifth floor,
Ramkey Selenium,
Beside Andhra Bank Training Centre,
Financial District, Gachibowli,
Hyderabad, A.P. India - 500 032.
Appellants/Opposite parties 1 to 3
And
Smt Sujatha Bakshi W/o late Ananth
Bakshi,
aged 39 years, Occ: Employee,
R/o Plot No.67, Kailash Nagar,
Adilabad.
..Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants M/s KRR Associates
Counsel for the Respondent Sri V.Gouri Sankara Rao
CORAM
*****
Hon'ble Sri Justice MSK Jaiswal President
and
Smt Meena Ramanathan ***
Member
Tuesday, the Twenty Fourth day of May Two Thousand Twenty Two Oral Order:
*** This is an appeal preferred by the Opposite parties aggrieved by the orders dated 05.11.2015 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Adilabad in CC No.46/2014 in allowing the complaint in part and directing the Opposite party No.3 therein to pay a sum of Rs.3,34,000/-2
with interest 7.5% per annum from the date of complaint till realisation and costs of Rs.2,000/- granting time of two months for compliance and by dismissing the complaint and 2.
against Opposite parties 1
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3 It is the case of Complainant that she is the wife of deceased Ananth Bakshi, who died on 16.02.2013 due to cardio During his lifetime, said Ananth respiratory arrest.
Bakshi obtained insurance
bearing No.NNO7 policy
1300063223 on 12.02.2013 from
an assured sum of Opposite parties for
claim with the
Rs.3,34,000/-. She being the
nominee, made the
Opposite party No.1 on 03.07.2013, which was for the reason that the signature of rejected deceased is differing from the signatures made by him on driving licence, PAN card, etc., The signatures appear to be forged by some third person.
4) The Opposite parties received the premium amount from deceased person when he lifted the the prized amount from Opposite party No.1 and in turn, the policy was obtained. The Complainant is the nominee to the policy in question. Hence, complaining deficiency of service, filed the present complaint with a prayer to direct the Opposite parties to pay the amount covered by policy at Rs.3,34,000/- together with interest 18% per from 03.07.2013 and also annum to pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation apart from costs of Rs.25,000/-.
5) Opposite party No.1 filed its written version to the effect that the policy in question was issued by Opposite party No.3 and it is no way concerned with the same, as such, the complaint against it is not maintainable. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint against it.
6) Opposite party No.2 filed her written version contending that Complainant is the wife of late Ananth Rao Bakshi, who died on 16.02.2013 and he had obtained the policy in question from Opposite party No.3. She is an agent and no liability can be fastened on her. Hence, prayed to dismiss the complaint against her.
7) Opposite party No.3 filed its written version contending that the Complainant is not a 'consumer' as defined under the Act and the Complaint is liuble to bo rejected in imine, Th dcsused life ussurt hd not disclomed the true facts with regard to pre health probletns, Much, thcre is no delicieney of servlce on its part, late: Ananth Ra K took the policy from them on 12.02.2013 for u term of 25 years with an a8sured sum of Rs.3,A,000/ by nominating the Cunplainant,
8) Oneceipt of clain, during investigstinn, it was ound ths! the sigualuuren found on the proposal form wss not iulentical to that found on PAN Curd, househokd card. Hence, he signutures found on PAN Curd, ration card, self-attestd driving licene were verified through te Porennic luboratory, wherein, it is opined that the signatures found on the houmehold card and PAN curd are nol identieal with the siyisture found on the prop5al lorm und the sc!f-altested capy of the driving licence of the decesed, henee, the clain was rcpudiated. There is o deficicncy of service on itn part and accordingly prayed to dismiss the complaint with cxemplury costs.
9) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove her cue, thce Complainant filed her affidavítl evidence as PW1 and got marked the docunentn Ex.A1 to A6. On behals of Opposite purty No.I, onc N.Sunil Kumar, their Branch Manager filed his affidavit cvidence us RW1; Opposite party No.2 herself filed her affidavit evidence RW2 and on behull of Opponite parly No.3, one E.Srilhar, their Assinstant Cenerul Manager iled his ullidavit evidence as RW3 und got marked the docunents Ex.B1 to B3.
10) The District Porum ater considering the material available on record, allowed the conpluint bearing CC No.46 of 2014, by orders d 05.11.2015, an stated, at paragraph No.1, supra.
11) Aggrieved by the said orders, the Appellants prefcrred the preent appeal contending that the forurn below failed to apprecíate the evidence brought on record in proper pcrspcctive. It failcd to consider the fact that the signature of the life ansured on the proposal form is different with that of the signature found on the admitted docunents, hence, the rcjection cannot be found fault with. urther, it failed to consider the fact that the deceaned life assured failed to disclose the pre-hcalth conditions in the proposal form and the fact that the contract of insurance is governed by the principle of "uberrima fide". Hence, prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the orders impugned.
The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned
12) order as passed by the District Commission suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered With, in any manner? To what relief ?
13) The admitted facts are as under:
The Appellant/Opposite party No.3 is the insurance company and the other Appellants/Opposite parties 1 and 2 are the chit fund company and the agent of the Appellant/Opposite party No.3. One Ananth Rao Bakshi (date of birth 03.01.1972) appears to have subscribed to a chit of Appellant/Opposite party No.1 and by way of social security, he is said to have obtained insurance policy for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- by paying the premia. The said policy was admittedly issued on 12.02.2013 vide Ex.A1. Within four days thereafter, i.e., on 16.02.2013, the life assured Ananth Rao Bakshi is said to have died due to cardiac attack, which fact is not disputed. The factum of premia being paid, the policy being issued and the death being natural is not controverted.
14) However, since the claim arose in close proximity, an investigator was appointed who during the course of investigation has obtained the documents which contain the admitted signatures of the said life assured namely Aadhaar card, PAN card, ration card and found that the signature thereon do not tally with the signature of the life assured on the proposal form Ex.B1. To make it sure, the admitted signature and the signature on the proposal form were sent to a private hand-writing expert by name ASK Learning Centre and one Kanchana Musrif has compared the signatures and opined that the signature on the form Ex.B1 do not tally with the admitted proposal signatures of the life assured on the PAN card, Aadhaar card and the driving licence. Therefore, the claim made by the Respondent/ Complainant who is nominee, being the wife of the life assured was admittedly the repudiated.
15) Aggrieved thereby, consumer complaint on the file of Respondent/Complainant preferred the District Commission, Adilabad has directed as under:
which 5 "n the result, the Opposite party No.complaint is allowed in part. Case against the 1 and 2 is Opposite party No.3 is to pay a dismissed sum and directed the interest 7.5% per annum of Rs.3,34,000/- with realisation and costs of Rs.2,000/-from the date of to the petition till two months from the date of receipt Complainant within of this order, failing which, the Complainant is at liberty to proceed against the party No.3 U/s 25/27 of C.P. Act, 1986." Opposite
16) The main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant/ Opposite party No.3 is that the insurance by the lile assured by playing fraud policy is obtained inasmuch as the signature on the proposal form manifestly do not belong to the lifc assured and hence the claim of the nominee cannot be considered.
17) On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/ Complainant submits that the insurance company cannot repudiate the claim nor can they raise the objections which are now raised on the ground that signature on the proposal form is not tallying for simple reason that having received the premia and having issued the policy, the contract concluded and they cannot be heard saying that a fraud was played on them in obtaining the insurance policy. That apart, the learned counscl appearing for the Respondent/ Complainant submits that the proposal form Ex.B1 was duly filled with all the detailed particulars of the life assured and the same was signed before Appellant/Opposite party No.2 Anupama Annawajala who is admittedly the agent of Appellant/Opposite party No.3.
18) The learned counsel for Respondent/Complainant further submits that the Appellant/Opposite party No.2 who is the agent of Appellant/ Opposite party No.3 has filed her written version in the complaint and she did not deny the factum of the life assured putting the signature on the proposal form in her presence. The learned counsel submits that if really the life assured has not signed in the proposal form in the presence of the agent Appellant/ Opposite party No.2, she should have asserted the same. On the other hand, she is conspicuously silent as to whether the signature on the proposal form is that of the life assurcd or not.
19) The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/Complainant further submits that having issued the policy and since the factum of death being natural is not disputed, the insurance company cannot turn TOund and say that the proposal form being fraudulently submitted, its liability is not subsisting. It is not as though that the insurance company contends that any of the information that is furnished by the ite assured is incorrect, suppressed or fraudulent. The only ground in the cause of repudiation is that the signature on the proposal form Ex.BI do not tally with that of the life assured.
20) The learned counsel
for the Appellant/Opposite
party No.3 heavily
relies upon the
report of the private hand-writing expert Ex.Bb in support of his contention that the signature on the proposal form is not that of the life assured.
21) The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent/Complainant submits that this contention of the learned counsel cannot be for the reason that sustained firstly, the hand-writing expert is not a expert nor his qualifications are government ascertained; secondly, the said hand- writing expert has not filed his evidence affidavit nor was produced for he cross-examination; thirdly, the hand-writing expert has not submitted the enlarged signatures of the disputed documents which are to supposed accompany any opinion of a hand-writing expert; fourthly, the hand-
writing expert has not ruled out the possibility of there the pattern of being change in signature due to the eflux of time; fifthly, the documents were not sent to the disputed hand-writing expert through the process of any Court. It is the voluntary act of the insurance company who has chosen to send the document to a private hand-writing expert. With the above objections, the learned counsel. appearing for Respondent/ Complainant submits that merely because the expert opined that the signature on the proposal form is not that of the life assured, the entire claim which otherwise cannot be repudiated cannot be repudiated.
22) The learned counsel appearing for further submits that under Section-74 of the Respondent/Complainant Evidence Act, the authority is competent to compare the disputed signatures and the admitted signatures and even to a naked eye, it is clear that the signature on the proposal form is that of the life assured, more particularly, if we carefully analyse the initial stroking and the last stroke of the signatures. The learned counsel submits that the speed and the slanting of the signature on the proposal form as well as on the card, Aadhaar card, ration admitted documents card and viz., PAN though in betwcen the first stroke driving licence are clearly similar and the last strokc some differencc. there appears to be
23) After having hcard the submissions of the learned appearing for the Appellant and Respondent counscl counsel cntire voluminous oral and cxtensively and perused the that even documentary evidence on record, it is noticed though much reliance was report said to have been placed upon hand-writing expert given by Kanchana Musrif, Psychologist, Graphologist and Consulting failed to advert to it. The Hypnotherapist, the District Forum has District Forum has failcd to crucial and analyse the most relevant documents viz., Ex.B2 which is the report of the hand-writing cxpert which the insurance company has placcd its rcliancc. Thercfore, we are of the considered where the matter is to opinion that it is a fit case be remanded back to the District Forum for denovo cnquiry including giving an opportunity to both the parties to adduce thcir oral and documentary evidence, if they are so advised and it is also open to the Appcllant insurance company to get the admitted and disputed signatures of thc lifc assured cxamined by the Government hand-writing cxpert by riling an appropriate application before the District Forum which the District Forum may allow subject to condition that the Appellant insurance company should pay the requisite fees for the govcrnment cxaminer. With thc above observation, the matter is remandcd back to the District Forum, Adilabad with a direction to disposc of the same as cxpeditiously as possible preferably within a period of threc months from today.
24) In the result, the appcal is disposcd of accordingly but in the circumstances, thc parlics to bear thcir own costs.