State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Icici Lombard General Insurance ... vs Thandi Ram on 25 November, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY,
CHANDGIARH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY,
CHANDGIARH
Appeal No.1965 of 2008
1. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, SCO
No.174-175, 1st Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Manager,
now shifted to SCO No. 214, 2nd Floor, Sector 14, Panchkula.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Limited Interface 11, 4th
Floor, Malad (w) Mumbai 400064, through its Manager.
..Appellants.
Versus
1. Thandi Ram r/o H.No.320, VPO Darua, UT, Chandigarh.
2. ICICI Bank Limited, SCO No. 9-10-11, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh
through its Manager.
..Respondents.
BEFORE: MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), PRESIDING MEMBER.
MRS.
NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
PRESENT: Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2 already exparte.
MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), PRESIDING MEMBER.
1. This is an appeal against order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 18.9.2008 passed in complaint case No. 326 of 2008 : Thandi Ram Vs. ICICI Bank Limited and another.
2. Precisely stated the case put forward by the complainant is that he is having an account No. 001301501421 with OP No.1 and was also having a credit card issued by it. On receiving his statement of account, he came to know that OP No.1 was auto debiting a premium for an insurance cover of his wife i.e. Rs.1773/- provided by OPs No.2 and 3, whereas no such insurance cover had ever been sought by the wife of the complainant. On approaching the OPs No.1 and 2 the matter was never clarified and they continued to debit the premium from his account. The complainant thereafter on the advise of OP No.1 got the insurance cancelled. It is further the case of the complainant is that in the account statement dated 18.8.2007 for the months of July and August, he found that a sum of Rs.6188/- had been debited for the insurance. He therefore sent a legal notice to the OPs dated 22.11.2007 but to no avail and hence the complaint.
3. The case of OP No.1 is that the account of Rs.1773/- had been charged to the complainant not towards any insurance but it was towards previous balance for the preceding amount on account of usage of the card.
4. The version of OPs No.2 and 3, however, is that the policy was offered to the wife of the complainant Mrs.Santosh Devi telephonically and the same was accepted by her and she confirmed the credit details such as house address, details of the husband, telephone number etc. and had also agreed for the payment of the insurance premium through debit through the credit card held by her husband and therefore on her instructions, the policy was issued and the premium was being charged.
5. The learned District Forum in its analysis of the complaint has recorded that as per the complainant no insurance cover was ever sought by him or his wife whereas the contention of the OP is that the wife of the complainant had agreed to take the insurance policy and her voice was recorded in the CD , a copy of which had been produced before the District Forum. The District Forum having heard the conversation recorded in the audio CD has recorded that there is nothing to suggest if the same is the voice of the complainants wife. The learned District Forum also found no merit in the contention of the OP that since various details had been given by the wife of the complainant as recorded in the CD because the credit card had been issued by the OPs and all the above information recorded in the CD was actually already available with the OPs even before the issuance of the credit card and this information was also available with the OPs in the loan application of the complainant which had been advanced by the OP bank. The learned District Forum also has recorded in the impugned order that the OPs made unsolicited call to the wife of the complainant and if at all they should have talked to the complainant, who was the head of the family and should not have got into conversation with the women folk in the house. It has also been recorded by the learned District Forum that unsolicited calls are barred but the OPs are not bothering for the instructions on the subject and continue to make such calls particularly when the complainant was not in the house. The learned District Forum therefore held the view that the OPs should be penalized for making unsolicited calls. Even discussing the information contained in the CD allegedly having the recording of conversation of the wife of the complainant the learned District Forum has observed that they were so many relevant details which are not included in the conversation such as insured amount, period of insurance etc. and also more importantly no subsequent confirmation had been obtained from the complainant and therefore no contract can be said to have come into existence between the parties. Thus holding the OPs guilty of deficiency in service the learned District Forum directed OPs No.2 and 3 to refund the entire amount of the premium received by them and also directed them to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages for indulging in unfair trade practice and making unsolicited calls and deducting the premium without issuance of any insurance policy as well as causing mental and physical harassment and financial loss to the complainant. The direction be issued to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
6. Aggrieved by this, OPs had filed this appeal having been taken on board. Notices were sent to the respondents. Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate has appeared on behalf of appellants wherein Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate appeared on behalf of complainant. However none appeared on behalf of ICICI Bank Limited (respondent No.2) and it was proceeded against exparte.
7. Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellants first referred to the para No.3 of the complaint submitted that the policy had been taken by the wife of the complainant and emphatically submitted that the transcript of conversation placed on file between the OPs and the wife of the complainant clearly proves that the policy had been accepted by the wife of the complainant. The learned counsel also submitted that inspite of clear pleadings of the OPs on this issue no affidavit or evidence or denial by the wife of the complainant has been placed on record by the complainant and therefore no doubt is left that the policy in question had been duly accepted by the wife of the complainant. He thereafter referred to para No. 6 of the order and submitted that even though in the order, the learned District Forum had held the view that the voice in the CD was not of the complainants wife, the same had been done without any evidence on record or denial by the wife of the complainant as earlier submitted. The learned counsel also submitted that the appeal is mainly against award of Rs.50,000/- granted as compensation to the complainant as the amount charged from the complainant towards the insurance premium has already been refunded to him.
8. Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the complainant on the other hand submitted that no refund of the amount has been given by the OPs as being stated by the learned counsel for the appellant. He also submitted that the impugned order was well reasoned and justified because the OPs knowingly harassed the customers and even in this case the legal notice sent to the OPs remained unanswered. In the end he emphatically denied that the wife of the complainant had any conversation with the OPs and submitted that the CD did not have the voice of the wife of the complainant.
9. We have gone through the evidence on record and heard the learned counsel for the parties.
10. The case of the appellant/OP is primarily based on the recording in the CD allegedly made with the wife of the complainant. In para No. 6 of the order, the learned District Forum has categorically stated that no evidence has been placed on record to prove that the voice recorded in the CD was of the wife of the complainant. Since the appellant/OP had filed the evidence in the form of CD, onus lay upon the appellants to prove that it contained the voice of the wife of the complainant. However as correctly stated by the learned District Forum no such evidence is on record and producing any CD as evidence without accompanying confirmation that the voice recording in the CD belongs to the person with whom the conversation is stated to be made, has no meaning and cannot be taken as cogent evidence. From the admitted facts of the case unsolicited call was admittedly made by the OP offering the so called insurance policy to the wife of the complainant. It is also admitted that no policy document had been issued to the complainant after the so-called issuance of the policy for which the OPs had already started deducting the premium. It is also on record that the information revealed in the alleged CD containing conversation with the wife of the complainant was already available with the OPs and therefore it does not conclusively prove that the OPs did have a conversation with the wife of the complainant and that she agreed to take the insurance cover.
11. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the clear view that the impugned order is well reasoned, just and fair. We also strongly support the view of the learned District Forum that the tendency on the part of OPs to make unsolicited calls needs to be strongly condemned and curbed. Thus we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed and the impugned order is upheld.
12. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.
Pronounced.
25th November, 2009. Sd/-
[MAJ.
GEN. S. P. KAPOOR(RETD.)] PRESIDING MEMBER Sd/-
[MRS. NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rb/-
STATE COMMISSION Appeal No.1965 of 2008 PRESENT: Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellants.
Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Respondent No.2 already exparte.
Dated the 25th day of November, 2009.
ORDER Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
(MAJ GEN S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.)) PRESIDING MEMBER (NEENA SANDHU) MEMBER Rb/-