State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Meenakshi Sharma vs M/S Reliance Insurance Company Ltd on 1 March, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 57 of 2013 Date of Institution : 12.02.2013 Date of Decision : 01.03.2013 Meenakshi Sharma Daughter of Shyam Lal Gaur, resident of House No.3256, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh. Appellant/complainant V e r s u s 1. M/s Reliance Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. office H-Block, 1st floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 400710, through its Managing Director. 2. Branch Manager, Reliance Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No.141/142, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160008. 3. Sh.Satpal Arora, H.No. 5212, Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh. ....Respondents/Opposite Parties Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Shyam Lal Gaur, Father of the appellant, in person.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This appeal is directed against the order dated 16.01.2013, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant), at the same time granting liberty, to the complainant, to agitate the issues, raised in the complaint, before the Civil/Criminal Court.
2. The facts, in brief, are that Sh.Shyam Lal Gaur, father of the complainant is a retired Government employee, who had sold his small house, in Rajasthan, and received Rs.4 lacs, as sale consideration. He decided to deposit Rs.2 lacs, in the name of two children of the complainant. He handed over a cheque, in the sum of Rs.1,05,000/-, for investing the same, in Monthly Interest Scheme (MIS) of Post Office, through Opposite Party No.3, who was working as agent of various financial Companies and Post Office. After investment in MIS, Opposite Party No.3, came to know that the father of the complainant, intended to invest Rs.4 lacs, in the name of his four grand children, in equal shares. Opposite Party No.3, approached the father of the complainant and convinced him, that he would invest the money, in better schemes of Reliance Company, for better returns, as he (Opposite Party No.3) was authorized person of Reliance Company. He also assured that the maturity amount would be equal to double the amount, invested for five years, with 15% return, per annum, as per copy of the chart Annexure C-1. Two cheques of Rs.1 lac each, were handed over by the father of the complainant, to Opposite Party No.3, for the children of the complainant, for investing the same in Reliance Company, as fixed deposit for 10 years. Opposite Party No.3, brought some application forms, and hurriedly obtained signatures of the complainant, on different forms and papers, and took the details.
3. When the documents were received by the father of the complainant, at his residence, from the office of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, it was revealed, that the Life Insurance Policies had been got issued from them, by Opposite Party No.3, by misrepresenting the facts, instead of investing the money in fixed deposits, in the name of his grand children. The regular premium policy amount of Rs.22,105/-, was shown to be deducted, from the Policy of Rs.1 lac, in first year only. Photocopies of the Policies, which included a copy of the application form, are Annexure C-2 and C-3. The father of the complainant, was, thus, shocked to receive the Policies, with regular premiums, requiring payment of Rs.2 lacs p.a., and he being a retired Govt. employee, could not think of paying such a huge premium, annually. The matter was taken up with Opposite Party No.3, by the father of the complainant, who assured him, not to worry. He also assured that the amount would be covered up, within three months. However, the father of the complainant was not satisfied and directed Opposite Party No.3, to take away the Policies and get the same corrected or the money be refunded to him. After a long discussion, Opposite Party No.3, told that he would get all the Policies, converted into single premium. Opposite Party No.3 took away the original documents of the Policies, and, thereafter, no further information was received by the complainant, and her father, from the Opposite Parties. The complainant, ultimately, went to the office of the Insurance Company, at Chandigarh, and met Sh.Divya Sharma, Manager, who expressed his inability to help him. It was stated that despite repeated requests and personal visits, made by the father of the complainant, to the office of Opposite Party No.2, all the Policies were returned, with no changes in the terms, regarding premium. He was told that the amount paid could not be refunded. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.3 was hand-in-glove with Opposite Party No.2, who trapped innocent customers, to achieve their own objective, and for monetary gain, by making misrepresentations.
4. It was further stated that the application forms were filled up, by Opposite Party No.3, at his own level. Opposite Party No.3, even gave wrong information, of his own, at many places i.e. email ID phone No.9815676333, belonging to Vikas Arora, Agent. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.3 had committed forgery, by affixing false documents, like date of birth certificates of the complainant and her daughter, whereas, the photocopies of the original certificates are Annexures C-4 to C-6. It was further stated that, had the complainant, filled in the forms or provided documents, she would have given genuine documents, whereas, the documents at pages 21,22,32 and 33, were forged by Opposite Party No.3, himself. The father of the complainant made numerous visits to the office of Opposite Party No.2, and also sent letter dated 18.10.2010, to Opposite Party No.1, seeking redressal of his grievance, followed by reminders, but no action was taken. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to refund the amount of premium, paid by the complainant, amounting to Rs.2,00,000/-, against the Policies Annexures 2 and 3, alongwith appropriate interest, by cancelling the same; pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation.
5. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in their joint written version, pleaded that the complainant had not approached the District Forum, with clean hands. It was stated that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, were not aware, with regard to any meetings held, between the father of the complainant and Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated that Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, never appointed Opposite Party No.3, as their authorized agent/person. It was further stated that the Policies were issued, after proper verification, from the complainant. It was further stated that the father of the complainant, being a retired Government employee, was supposed to have read the papers, before filling in and signing the same. It was further stated that the complainant or her father, was never forced by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, with regard to the issuance of the Insurance Policies. It was denied that the father of the complainant met Sh.Divya Sharma, Manager, in the office of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, at Chandigarh. It was further stated that the application forms were filled in, by the complainant and her father, of their own, and, if there was any mistake or error, in the same, it was attributable to them. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6. Opposite Party No.3, in his written version admitted that he was living in the locality of the daughter of the complainant. It was stated that he had been doing the work of insurance with various Companies, for the last many years. It was further stated that the father of the complainant, approached him, for getting guidance for investing his amount, in a better Scheme of Reliance Company. Opposite Party No.3, only provided the guidance to the father of the complainant, with regard to the better Policies. It was denied that the forms were filled in, by Opposite Party No.3. It was further stated that the complainant, after satisfying, and going through the contents of the forms, filled in and signed the same. It was denied that Opposite Parties No.3, told the complainant that he would get all the Policies, converted into single premium Policies. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.3, never met the complainant, after providing the guidance, with regard to the Insurance Policies. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.3, nor he indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
7. In the rejoinder, filed by the complainant, to the written version of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, it was stated that they (Opposite Parties No.1 and 2), acting through their agent, committed serious offences of inducing the complainant, to deposit money with them. It was further stated that the agent of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, had indulged into forgery of documents, so that claim of the complainant could be rejected. It was further stated that, in reply to the letter dated 18.10.2010, the father of the complainant received cheque No.115207 dated 28.10.2010 of Rs.9,980/-. It was further stated that nothing was written, in the application forms, by the complainant and her father and the entire process was completed by Opposite Party No.2, himself or somebody in his office.
8. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
9. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, came to the conclusion, that since, serious allegations of forgery, placing false documents, fraud and cheating had been levelled by the complainant, against the Opposite Parties, the same could not be adjudicated upon, by it, as the proceedings before it were summary in nature.
10. Ultimately, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
11. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
12. We have heard Sh. Shyam Lal Gaur, father of the appellant, in person, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
13. Sh.
Shyam Lal Gaur, father of the appellant, submitted that the false documents like date of birth certificates of the complainant and her daughter, at pages 21,22, 32 and 33, were forged by Opposite Party No.3. He further submitted that the signatures of the complainant were taken on blank application forms, which were filled in, later on, by the Opposite Parties, on their own. He further submitted that Opposite Party No.3, the authorized Agent of Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in connivance with each other, thus, misguided the complainant, committed forgery and cheated her, by playing fraud upon her. He further submitted that the District Forum, committed an illegality, in not accepting the complaint.
14. The question, that arises for consideration, is, as to whether, the District Forum could entertain and decide the complaint, on merits, especially, when serious allegations of forgery, placing false documents, fraud and cheating had been levelled by the complainant, against the Opposite Parties, and she also attempted to prove the same, by way of filing her affidavit, in the shape of evidence. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Munimahesh Patel 2006(2)CPC668(SC), Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd.I(1998)CPJ13, a case decided by a four Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, and M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. Vs United Commercial Bank 111(1992)CPJ 50, a case decided by a three member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held that when there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof, requires elaborate evidence, the same cannot be decided by a Consumer Fora, proceedings before which, are summary in nature. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.s case (supra), there was a dispute, about the disclosure of information, incorporated in the proposal form. Two copies of the proposal form were produced. In one copy of the proposal form, the insured stated that she was working as a teacher, whereas, in the other copy of the proposal form, it was stated that she was a housewife. The insured, thus, on the basis of such information, obtained the policy. The insured died. When the claim was filed by her legal representatives, the same was repudiated, on the ground of a false disclosure of information, by the insured, in the proposal form. The District Forum, accepted the complaint, which was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased insured. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, set aside the order of the District Forum, on the ground, that there was dispute of disclosure made, in the proposal form, and the information given and, as such, the facts being disputed and of complicated nature, the complainant should take appropriate proceedings for establishing his claim, and for seeking the reliefs in the Court of competent jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved, a revision petition, was filed before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, which accepted the same, holding that the information disclosed by the insured, had no nexus with her death and, as such, restored the order of the District Forum. Feeling aggrieved, the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., filed Civil Appeal bearing No.4091 of 2006. The Honble Supreme Court held that the proceedings before the Commission were essentially summary in nature. It was further held that the factual position was required to be established by documents. It was further held that in view of the complex factual position, the matter could not be examined, by the Consumer Foras, and the appropriate forum, was the Civil Court. In Reliance Industries Ltd.s case (supra), it was held that when the questions of fraud and cheating are involved, in regard to the claim of the complainant, which require thorough scrutiny, including the examination of various documents and supporting oral evidence, the Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate upon the matter. It was further held that the questions of fraud, cheating and conspiracy, could be satisfactorily resolved, by the Civil Court. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd.s case (supra) decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi. No case law, contrary to the one, referred to above, was either cited or produced by the appellant/complainant. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case.
15. Since the complex and disputed questions and facts, are involved in the complaint, as to whether, the documents like date of birth certificates of the daughter of the complainant and middle standard examination certificate of the complainant, copies whereof are placed at pages 21/45. 22/46, 32/55 and 33/56 of the record of the District Forum were forged and fabricated by Opposite Party No.3, in our considered opinion, for proving the same, thorough analysis of the voluminous documents, and elaborate examination of the witnesses and their cross-examination is required. Such issues, therefore, could not be adjudicated upon, by the Consumer Fora, in the proceedings, which are summary in nature, before it. In the replication also, the complainant levelled serious allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, against the Opposite Parties. It was not that the mere allegations were levelled, by the complainant, that the documents, referred to above, were forged and fabricated by Opposite Party No.3, but she also attempted to prove the same, by way of filing her affidavit, in the shape of evidence. The Opposite Parties, vehemently denied the same and also attempted to disprove the same, by way of filing the affidavits, in the shape of evidence. Thus, only the Civil Court could decide such complicated, complex, and disputed questions. The principle of law, laid down, in the cases, referred to in paragraph No.14 above, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. The District Forum, in our considered opinion, took into consideration, this aspect of the matter, in its proper perspective and was right in dismissing the complaint. The order of the District Forum is liable to be upheld.
16. No other point, was urged, by the father of the appellant.
17. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
18. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to cost. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
19. The complainant may approach the Civil Court of competent Jurisdiction, for the adjudication of complex, disputed and complicated issues/facts, referred to above.
20. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
21. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
01.03.2013 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg