State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Icici Prudential Life Insurance ... vs Satish Sharma & Ors. on 3 April, 2014
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No: 283/2013.
Presented On: 17.10.2013.
Decided On: 03.04.2014.
.................................................................................
M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited,
ICICI Pru Life Tower,
1089, Appa Saheb Maratha Marg,
Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400 025,
Also at:
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited,
Janaki Das Building,
The Mall, Shimla-171 001.
... Appellant
Versus
1. Sh. Satish Sharma, son of Shri Kailash Chand,
2. Shri Amit Kumar, son of Shri Satish Sharma,
3. Shri Rohit Sharma, son of Shri Satish Sharma,
All Residents of Sun View Cottage,
Below Jinna House, Lower Cemetery,
Sanjauli, Shimla-6, H.P.
4. Shri Satish Bhardwaj,
Branch Incharge,
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited,
Janaki Das Building,
The Mall, Shimla-171 001.
5. Shri Gopal Singh, son of Shri B.D. Verma,
Agent,
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited,
Janaki Das Building,
The Mall, Shimla-171 001,
Presently situated at Chhajta Heights,
Sanjauli, Shimla-6, H.P.
... Respondents
.........................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member
{M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satish Sharma & Ors.}
(F.A.No.283/2013)
_______________________________________________________
______
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Shriyek Sharda, Advocate vice
Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents No. 1 to 3: Mr. Peeyush Verma, Advocate.
For the Respondents No. 4 & 5: Ex-parte.
..........................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) This appeal is directed against the order dated 08.07.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla, whereby a complaint filed against the appellants by respondents/ complainants-Satish Sharma, Amit Sharma & Rohit Sharma, has been allowed and a direction given to the appellants to refund a sum of `2,48,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from the date of filing of the complaint to the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of money and also to pay `15,000/- as damages, and `2,500/- as litigation cost.
2. Respondents-Satish Sharma, Amit Sharma & Rohit Sharma filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the appellants and respondents No.4 & 5, alleging that respondents No.4 & 5 are the agents of the present appellants and that on being cajoled by respondents No.4 & 5, they invested a sum of 1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? 2 {M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satish Sharma & Ors.} (F.A.No.283/2013) _______________________________________________________ ______ `2,48,000/- in three policies with the appellant. They alleged that they were informed that they would be earning profits equivalent to not less than 18% per annum of the invested amount and that the profits could be even much higher. It was alleged that a few months after the investment of money (investment was made in April & October, 2011), a communication was received from the appellants that the investment of `99,000/- in April, 2011 had come down to `77,000/- approximately. It was alleged that after receiving the communication, a request was made to the appellants to refund the money with interest, as the respondents had been assured by the agents, i.e. respondents No.4 & 5 that minimum dividends would be 18% per annum of the invested amount, but the money invested by them was stated to have reduced because of market position. When their money was not refunded, respondents/complainants filed a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
3. Appellants on being served with notice, Shri Lalit Sharma, Advocate put in appearance on their behalf and filed a Power of Attorney. However, on the date fixed for filing reply, nobody appeared for the appellants and they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. 3
{M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satish Sharma & Ors.} (F.A.No.283/2013) _______________________________________________________ ______ Thereafter, no steps were taken by the appellants for getting the ex-parte proceedings order set aside. Ex-parte evidence was adduced by the respondents/complainants and the complaint was allowed and impugned order passed.
4. In the grounds of appeal, it is stated that the appellants had engaged a counsel and a Power of Attorney had also been executed in his favour. It is also alleged that reply to the complaint was sent to that counsel. It is stated that appellants came to know that the counsel had not appeared after appearing on the initial date and they were proceeded against ex-parte, only when they received copy of the impugned order. In support of this plea reliance has been placed upon the record of learned District Forum, as also certain emails. The emails though were sent to different persons and not to the counsel allegedly engaged by the appellant, yet the fact remains that one counsel was engaged by the appellants to represent them before the learned District Forum. The emails appear to have been sent by certain functionaries of the appellants to other functionaries working in legal cell and they pertain to preparation of reply to the complaint.
5. In view of the above stated position, we are of the view that appellants deserve to be afforded an 4 {M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satish Sharma & Ors.} (F.A.No.283/2013) _______________________________________________________ ______ opportunity to defend themselves and so far as the respondents/complainants are concerned, they can be compensated for the inaction on the part of the appellants, in not filing reply, and their careless and negligent attitude in not ensuring if their counsel was pursuing the matter diligently, by heavy costs. So, the appeal is allowed and impugned order set aside, subject to payment of costs of `20,000/- and the complaint is remanded to the learned District Forum with the direction to decide the same afresh, after affording an opportunity to the appellants to file reply and defend themselves. Costs shall be payable to the respondents/complainants, within one month from today. In case costs are not paid, within the aforesaid time, appellants shall have no right to file reply.
6. Parties are directed to appear before the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla on 01.05.2014.
7. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Prem Chauhan) 5 {M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Satish Sharma & Ors.} (F.A.No.283/2013) _______________________________________________________ ______ Member April 03, 2014.
DC Dhiman) 6