State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shri Sanjib Kumar Dey vs Chabi Dey on 10 February, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 First Appeal No. FA/1220/2013 (Arisen out of Order Dated 08/10/2013 in Case No. CC/268/2011 of District South 24 Parganas DF, Alipore) 1. Shri Sanjib Kumar Dey Agency Manager, S B I Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Behala Br., 567, Diamond Harbour Road, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700 034. 2. Mr. Nauneet Bhasin, Regional Director(E), SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Kolkata Regional Office, 11, U.N. Brahmachari Street, Kolkata-700 017. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Chabi Dey W/o Arabinda Dey, P-56, S.N. Roy Road, P.S. New Alipore, Kolkata - 700 038. 2. State Bank of India Behala Branch, 567, Diamond Hoarbour Road, 2nd Floor, Kolkata - 700 034. 3. Kaushik Ganguly S/o Mintoo Chatterjee, 19/3A, Kali Kumar Majumdar Road, Santoshpur, Kolkata-700 075. 4. M.N. Race, M.D (C.E.O), SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Nataraj Building, M.V. Road & Western Express Highway Junction, Andheri East, Mumbai - 400 069. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG MEMBER For the Appellant: Ms. Sumit Roy Chowdhury , Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Sanat Sil., Advocate ORDER
Date: 10-02-2015 Sri Debasis Bhattacharya This appeal is directed against the Order dated 08-10-2013 in Case No. 268/2011, passed by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas, whereby the complaint has been allowed on contest against the OP Nos. 3 to 5. Being aggrieved/dissatisfied with the same, the OP Nos. 3 and 4 thereof have preferred this appeal.
Brief case of the Complainant is that she invested a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- in two SBI Life Unit Plus Super policies on 10-09-2010 against which the OP No. 3 handed over to her two receipts being nos. 412521524 and 400802546. However, when the OP No. 3 took inordinate time to handover the insurance kit to her, she visited the office of the OP No. 2, but to her utter surprise, the OP No. 2 informed her that there was no such policy in her name and dubbed the receipts as forged documents. Out of her wit's end, she hired a detective agency, M/s Focus Detective Services, but they failed to give any satisfactory feedback to her. Then, the Complainant lodged a GD with local police station vide no. 2592 dated 24-06-2011, but as the local police also failed to make any headway in this regard, she filed a criminal case against the OP Nos. 2&3 and his agents at Alipore Police Court on 04-07-2011 being Case No. AC-994/2011. She also lodged a complaint with the OP No. 4 on 17-11-2011. However, on 28-11-2011, she got a letter from the SBI Life Insurance Ltd. whereby they denied any liability on their part. Against this backdrop, she filed the instant case to get back the deposited amount with interest and some other relief(s) as per prayer of the complaint.
OP No. 3 contested the case by filing WV whereby he denied any deficiency on his part. He categorically denied that the Complainant invested the sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- or any part thereof with SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and therefore, there was no question of delivery of the Insurance Kit to her. The Complainant has failed to prove that demand drafts were encashed by the Insurance Company, as alleged. The deposit receipts were prepared by the Complainant herself for the purpose of filing the instant complaint petition. The GD was lodged after 09 months from the date of alleged incident with an ulterior motive. The Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter of cheat and forgery. The Complainant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The OP No. 4 and the OP No. 5 also contested the case by filing separate WVs and both of them merely echoed the statements of the OP no. 3.
Point to be considered in this appeal is if the impugned order suffers from any factual/legal incongruity, or not.
Decision with reasons Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that the Appellant No. 1 never visited the residence of the Respondent No. 1 nor called her over phone on 01-09-2010, as claimed. The Appellant No. 1 never received any money from the Respondent No. 1 and the purported deposit receipts being deposited by the Respondent No. 1 in support of her claim are manufactured documents. The Appellants have no knowledge that the Respondent No., 1 deposited Rs. 6,00,000/- with the Insurance Company. The GD, which was lodged by the Respondent No. 1 after expiry of 09 months, was an afterthought. The Appellants are the employees of SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The Appellant No. 1 is not an agent of SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., but he is the Agency Manager of the Insurance Company. The instant case is bad for defect of parties insofar as SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. has not been impleaded as a party to the case. The Respondent No. 1 has not disclosed how Rs. 6,00,000/- was paid, i.e., by cash or by Cheque/Draft. According to the Respondent No. 1, the agent visited her residence on 09-09-2010. Then the question arise, how she prepared the draft for Rs. 1,00,000/- on 09-09-2010 and deposited the same on the very same day. While adjudicating the case, the Ld. District Forum did not consider the fact that the purported deposit receipts do not bear any signature of any official of the Insurance Company. It being a case of forgery, it is beyond the purview of the Consumer Fora to adjudicate the case under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Ld. District Forum without considering the merit of the case, reached an erroneous conclusion and decided the case in favour of the Respondent No. 1. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside.
On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 made out that on 10-09-2010, she invested a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- in two SBI Life Unit Plus Super policies and two receipts were issued by the Respondent No. 3. When insurance kit in respect of said two policies did not reach her in time, she visited the office of the Respondent No. 2, and she was told by the Respondent No. 2 that the said receipts were fake documents. On 24-06-2011, the Respondent No. 1 lodged a complaint before the local P.S., but as it did not yield any satisfactory result, she filed a case u/s 156(3), Cr. P.C. being A.C. Case No. 994/2011. The said case was investigated by the CID, West Bengal and charge-sheet against the Appellant No. 1 has already been submitted before the appropriate Court of Law u/s 420/406/467/471/114/34, IPC. The Respondent No. 1 also sent a notice to the higher authorities, i.e. the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, but no fruitful action was taken and on the contrary, they completely denied their liability and also specifically stated vide their letter dated 26-11-2011 that the Company has not received any proposal to the effect as claimed by her. The Ld. District Forum has rightly pointed out that the Appellants are guilty of gross deficiency in service and adopted unfair trade practice, not only upon the Respondent No. 1, but also upon the society at large. In the interest of justice, the instant appeal be dismissed with cost.
The petition of complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum by the Respondent No. 1 on 23-12-2011, u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 over deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs in the original petition of complaint. The Ld. District Forum, on being satisfied about the genuineness of the claim of the Respondent No. 1 about deposit of Rs. 6,00,000/- with the Insurance Company, admitted the case and tried it as per law. There can be no manner of doubt that adjudication of a dispute pertaining to non-issue of an insurance kit very much falls within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and therefore, we do not see any inexactness in adjudicating the instant petition of complaint by the Ld. District Forum.
Undisputedly, upon completion of its investigation into the matter of alleged misappropriation of money, charge sheet has been filed by the CID, West Bengal against the Appellant No. 1 and a competent Court of Law has taken due cognizance of the same. True, filing of charge sheet does not prove one's guilt in the wrongdoing. At the same time, we cannot be oblivious of the saying that there can be no smoke without fire. The disputed receipts mention that the alleged sum was deposited through bank draft, drawn on Allahabad Bank. If the same were indeed not issued by the Allahabad Bank, it would not have been a difficult task for the investigating authority to unearth the falsity on the part of the Respondent No. 1. The purported receipts were filed by the Respondent No. 1 before the Ld. District Forum under affidavit. We find it quite inexplicable if the Respondent No. 1 indeed forged the same, what prevented the Appellants from initiating proceedings u/s 340 Cr.P.C. before the Ld. District Forum or filing defamatory suit against the Respondent No. 1 before the appropriate Court of Law. If the Respondent No. 1 had any ulterior motive, she could have forged the specimen signature as embodied on other two receipts of the same Insurance Company.
Keeping all these facts into perspective, we find nothing wrong with the findings as well as that of the award given by the Ld. District Forum in favour of the Respondent No. 1. Consequent thereof, we find no cogent ground to interfere with the otherwise well reasoned impugned order and uphold the same as it is.
In fine, the appeal stands dismissed.
Hence, ORDERED that the appeal be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Respondent No. 1, but without any order as to costs. The impugned order is hereby affirmed.
JAGANNATH BAG DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA MEMBER MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. JAGANNATH BAG] MEMBER