State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
N.K. Vohra vs D.L.F. Pramerca Life Insurance Co. Ltd on 24 September, 2014
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.574 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 20.05.2014.
Date of Decision: 24.09.2014.
N.K. Vohra S/o Sh. Maharaj Krishan Vohra, Retd. Income Tax Officer, R/o
775, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Jalandhar.
.....Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
1. D.L.F. Pramerca Life Insurance Co. Ltd., 4th Floor, Building No.98,
Cyber City, DLF City, Phase-III, Gurgaon-122002.
2. The Branch Manager, D.L.F. Pramerca Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Eminent Marg, Guru Nanak Chowk, Amritsar.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties.
First Appeal against order dated
11.04.2014 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate.
.............................................. J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
The appellant (complainant in the complaint) has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 11.04.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short, "the District Forum"), relegating the appellant to civil court for redressal of his grievance and dismissing the complaint filed against the respondents of this appeal (opposite parties in the complaint).First Appeal No.574 of 2014 2
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that Sh. N.K. Vohra, complainant filed the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the opposite parties, on the allegations that on the assurances of the opposite parties, he received the following insurance policies in the name of her minor daughter namely Sanna Vohra:-
S.No. Application No- policy No Name Premium paid Plan
1. AF000530616 000091154 Mr.NK Vohra Rs. 76,352/- Dhan Raksha
2. AF000568450 000109771 Mr. NK Vohra Rs. 34282/- Dhan Raksha The complainant paid the amount of Rs.3,56,352/- through cheques no.2408040 dated 20.10.2011 & 07866 dated 14.12.2011 of SBI Jalandhar and PNB, Jalandhar respectively, as demanded by the opposite parties, as total premium. After adjusting the amount of premium from the total amount of Rs.3,56,352/-, the amount of Rs.2,45,732/- was shown as held in deposit by opposite party no.1. The opposite parties were required to refund balance amount of Rs.2,45,732/- lying deposited after adjusting the amount, but the same was never refunded to the complainant despite repeated requests in this regard. The opposite parties unilaterally and arbitrarily and without knowledge of the complainant, diverted the excess amount held in deposit as referred above in a fresh policy purportedly issued in the name of Rajesh Vohra, major son of the complainant, who is self earning and dependant. The proposal and acceptance of risk of life insurance on life of Rajesh Vohra was never agreed nor any such proposal form was either signed by the complainant or Rajesh Vohra.
Legal notice was served upon the opposite parties in this regard. The opposite parties unauthorizedly and without consent of Rajesh Vohra got the complainant diverted the balance amount of Rs.2,45,732/-. The First Appeal No.574 of 2014 3 complainant has, thus, filed the complaint seeking compensation from the opposite parties.
3. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed written reply, taking preliminary objections that on the basis of the information, declaration given by the complainant and also upon receipt of the duly filled form along with the initial Premium, the Opposite Parties issued Policy bearing no. 000091154, 000109771 & 000117049 with the Commencement date of 29/10/2011, 12/01/2012 & 10.2.2013, respectively to the Complainant. It was averred that the policy was dispatched on 13.2.2012 through overnight courier AWB Number 7770705154 at the address mentioned on the application form and same was returned back with the reason "Refused to Accept" any documents from DLF" on 28th February 2012. The opposite parties as per its procedure made a Welcome call to the complainant to confirm the status of the Policy bearing no. 117049, but he could not talk due to some mis- happening in the family. Despite the receipt of the said information, the complainant neither raised any issue nor any query about the agent or mis-selling. All three policies were issued on the basis of the duly signed application and other documents like birth certificate of baby Sanna Vohra, who was life assured under first two policies. The complainant has written a letter dated 12.1.2012 to transfer the excess amount of Rs. 2,45,722/- from the application no. AF000568450 to the application No. AF000514673 for issuance of policy No.117049. The company received letter dated 06.03.12 from the complainant that he has not applied for policy no. 117049 and he requested for refund of Rs.2,45,722/-.The opposite parties replied, vide letter dated 28.03.1012, informing that he has confirmed all policy details during the verification call made to him on his registered mobile number and even confirmed that he himself has First Appeal No.574 of 2014 4 signed the application form under policy no.117049. He has also written a letter to transfer the funds to his new application for the said policy. The complainant has refused to take delivery of the policy documents twice and the same were returned to the company with remarks "Refused to accept any document from DLF. The opposite parties controverted the other averments of the complainant with regard to any deficiency in service on their part and, thus, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The complainant tendered in evidence affidavits Ex.CA to Ex.CC along with documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11. On the other hand, the opposite parties tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1 along with documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum dismissed the complaint of the complainant by relegating him to civil court. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the complainant has come up in this appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage and have also examined the record of the appeal file.
6. On considering the evidence of the parties and hearing the respective submission of the counsel for the parties, the District Forum found that the matter involved in this case is a complex one, which can be adjudicated by the regular civil court and not in summary manner. The only dispute between the parties in this case is whether the amount of Rs.2,45,732/-, which was earlier held in deposit by the opposite parties, of the complainant after adjusting of premium, has been unauthorizedly and unilaterally diverted in the investment of the above policy in the name of major son of the complainant, namely Rajesh Vohra. The District Forum has duly discussed that Rajesh Vohra swore his affidavit, alleging that he has not signed any proposal form for taking the policy, nor he gave any acceptance to the contract of insurance at any time. On the other hand, First Appeal No.574 of 2014 5 the opposite parties contended to the contrary that Rajesh Vohra filled the proposal form. We find that the order of the District Forum is sustainable and consistent. The matter involved in this case is whether the proposal form for taking the insurance policy is signed by Rajesh Vohra, son of the complainant, or it is a forged one, whereupon this amount has been invested in the above policy, which was earlier held in deposit with the opposite parties. The affidavit of Rajesh Vohra is on the record, denying his signatures on the proposal form, as observed by the District Forum. We find that the point involved in this case is of complex nature, which can be decided by the regular civil court only. The point of forgery is involved in this case, necessitating the examining of handwriting experts and voluminous evidence on this point, involving cross-examination and re-examination of the witnesses. The matter cannot be adjudicated in summary manner, as the point of forgery is involved in this case. We are in agreement with the order of the District Forum under appeal that the matter is to be decided by the regular civil court only due to complex fact and law. We find no illegality and material infirmity in the order of the District Forum. Consequently, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed in limine at the admission stage.
7. Arguments in this appeal were heard on 16.09.2014 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(J. S. KLAR) PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (JASBIR SINGH GILL) MEMBER September 24, 2014.
(Gurmeet S)