STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

                                    U.T., CHANDIGARH 

                                    (Additional Bench)

1.  Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,  registered office at H. Block, Ist Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City Centre, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400710 through its MD. 
2. Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,  SCO 123-124, 3rd Floor, above Reliance Jewels, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017, both through their authorized signatory Mr.Amit Rana.

                                                                                         ...  Appellants.

                                               Versus

       1.  Harsh Kumar Aggarwal son of Late Ram Swarup R/o # 192-A,              Sector 4, MDC, Panchkula Haryana -134114.

      2.  Lakshya Aggarwal son of Sh.Harsh Kumar Aggarwal R/o # 192-A,       Sector 4, MDC, Panchkula Haryana -134114

                                                                       ..... Respondents

Appeal under Section-41 of  the Consumer Protection Act,2019  against  the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.435/2021.

For the appellants :   S/Sh.Sanjeev Goyal & Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocates.

For the respondents:  Sh.Harsh Aggarwal,Advocate, Respondent No.1                                                      in person and for respondent No.2.

­­­­_________________________________________________________

1. Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,  registered office at H. Block, Ist Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City Centre, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra-400710 through its MD. 
2. Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,  SCO 123-124, 3rd Floor, above Reliance Jewels, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh-160017, both through their authorized signatory  

                                                                                         ...  Appellants  

                                               Versus

1. Samidha Aggarwal wife of Sh.Harsh Kumar Aggarwal, R/o #192-A,Sector-4, MDC, Panchkula(Hayana)134114
2. Aseem Aggarwal S/o Sh.Harsh Kumar Aggarwal, R/o #192-A,Sector-4, MDC, Panchkula(Hayana)134114

                                                                       ..... Respondents

Appeal under Section-41 of  the Consumer Protection Act,2019  against  the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No.436/2021.

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                       Mr.PREETINDER SINGH,MEMBER

For the appellants :     S/Sh.Sanjeev Goyal & Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocates.

For the respondents:   Sh.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate 

PER PADMA PANDEY,PRESIDING MEMBER

                   This  order will dispose of aforementioned two appeals bearing Nos. 50 of 2023 titled as Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr. Versus Harsh Kumar Aggarwal & Anr.  and 51 of 2023  titled as Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr.  Versus Samidha Aggarwal & anr. both filed  against the common  order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T.Chandigarh  whereby  both the complaints were allowed and directions were issued to refund the respective  deposited amounts in both the complaints alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the respective dates of deposits till its actual realization. Complainants in both the complaints were granted lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- each.   The facts are being taken from appeal No.50 of 2023 titled as Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr. Versus Harsh Kumar Aggarwal & Anr.

2.               As per facts of the case, two persons being  representatives of the Opposite Party namely Sh.Puneet Arora and Sh.Piyush Aggarwal visited the complainants in April,2018 for selling  policy of the OP insurance company  and allured them by stating that the OP insurance company  would   pay fixed regular additions (percentage of annualized premium) @ 8% for the first year, @ 9% for the second year and @ 10% for the third year  onwards, which are the key features of the “Reliance Nippon Life Fixed Saving Policy”, which was to be issued for five years and the same could be surrendered after three years with fixed regular additions.  After verifying the facts as represented by the above officials, the complainants issued cheque of Rs.3.00 lakhs dated 26.05.2018 against receipt.  Photocopy of the cheque and its receipt are attached herewith as Annexure C-3 and C-4 respectively.  It is alleged that the proposal form and the particulars of the cheque were filled by the above representatives of the OPs and the complainant only signed the cheque filled by them. At page No.9 of the alleged policy, the income of the insured-Lakshya Aggarwal was shown to be Rs.60 lacs p.a. whereas he was only a student and just completed his B.Com whereas the income of the proposer Harsh Aggarwal was shown to be Rs.2.50 crores whereas his total income for the financial year 2017-18 was only Rs.31,53,400/-. At no point of time, the income of the proposer-complainant was in crores but remained between Rs.22-32 Lakhs per annum.  It is further alleged that copy of the policy No.53232721 (Annexure C-7) was delivered after a month’s time which in fact turned out to be a blur and  illegible copy.   The complainants paid three premiums through cheques in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- dated 26.05.2018, Rs.2,91,500/- dated 06.05.2019 and Rs.2,93,544/- dated 31.05.2020 (Annexures C-4, C-8 and C-9) respectively.  It is further alleged that   the OPs have played unfair trade practice and made mis-representations and drew up a unilateral unfair contract/policy and as such the complainants made complaint dated 06.06.2020 (Annexure C-10) in this regard to the OPs. After completion of three years, the complainant approached the OPs for redemption and the OPs offered to pay redemption value of Rs.4,30,371/- against the three premiums of Rs.8,85,044/- instead of Rs.10,39,000/- as promised. It is further alleged   that the OPs have played unfair trade practice with the complainants and adopted deceptive practice by making a false statement orally and by making visible representation/calculations.  Ultimately the complainants served a legal notice dated 18.06.2021  (Annexure C-11) upon the OPs through OP No.1 personally and also made complaint through e-mail (Annexure C-12) but to no effect.   Alleging  deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, a consumer complaint was filed before the District Commission seeking   refund  of the entire  premium  deposited in three installments along with interest amount as promised i.e. Rs.10,39,000/- and future  interest @18% till realization, Rs.5 Lakhs as damages  for mental agony and harassment etc.

3.                  Pursuant to issuance of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared and  contested the complaint.  In their written version, it was stated that  based on the answers, statements, premium amount, premium paying term opted and declarations made in the proposed form duly executed and submitted by the life assured/proposer, the OPs have issued  policy No.53232721 to the proposer/life assured on receiving   premium of Rs.3.00 lakhs . The term of the Policy was for  12 years, premium term for 10 years  with base  sum assured of Rs.21,63,654/-. It is further stated that the policy, in question,  was despatched to the complainant through registered post (Annexure C-7).  The complainant had also signed declaration and authorization contained in the e-proposal form meaning thereby that the life assured/proposer was explained all the terms and conditions of the policy and only after his satisfaction, he provided the details in the proposal form in English language after accepting the terms and conditions mentioned therein. It was further stated that the complainant had received the policy document and all the applicable charges, premium paying terms, benefits etc.  duly mentioned in the policy, and as such he was fully aware about the terms and conditions of the policy.  It  was further  stated that the policy schedule filed by the complainant/Life Assured itself states that the premium paying term under the policy was of “10 years” and as such they were fully aware of the minimum premium paying term and also about the premium payment being regular in nature. Maintainability of the complaint in the District Commission has also been challenged. The remaining allegations were denied and  pleading that there was no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice  on their part, a prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.    

4.               On appraisal of the complaint, and the evidence adduced on record, Ld. Lower Commission allowed both the above complaints by common order dated 19.01.2023, in the following manner ;

“Resultantly, we allow the consumer complaint of the complainants. The Opposite Parties are jointly or severally directed to refund the deposited amounts i.e. Rs.8,85,044/- to the complainants alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its respective deposits till its actual realization.  The Opposite Parties are also directed to pay the lump sum compensation to the complainant to the tune of Rs.15,000/-.” 

          In the second complaint, refund of the deposited amount of Rs.5,91,400/- was allowed alongwith interest  @9% p.a. and compensation of Rs.15,000/- as awarded in the other complaint.

5.                Aggrieved against the  aforesaid order passed by the Ld. Lower Commission, the opposite Parties filed two separate appeals bearing Appeal No.50 of 2023 titled as Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr. Versus Harsh Kumar Aggarwal & Anr.  and 51 of 2023  titled as Reliance Nippon Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & anr.  Versus Samidha Aggarwal & anr   against the common  order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T.Chandigarh.

6.                     We have heard  Counsel for the parties , and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

7.             It is contended by  Counsel for the appellants that the written statement and affidavit were filed by Mr.Amit Rana, who was duly authorized by the appellant company to represent the company. The legal head also issued   letter of authority in favour of Mr.Amit Rana and the said authority letter was duly placed on record by the appellant alongwith the reply, therefore, the finding of the Lower Commission that the written version and other legal proceedings were not filed by an authorised person is totally wrong, illegal and without application of mind.

8.                 The learned Counsel for the appellants further argued that public interest cannot be defeated on mere technicality and it will be a travesty of justice if the appellants are to be non suited for a technical reason which does not go to the root of the matter and such procedural irregularity was curable.  In support of his contention, learned Counsel placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as United Bank of India Vs Naresh Kumar and others 1996 AIR(SCW)4149,  M/s Haryana State Coop. Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. Vs M/s Jayam Textiles & Anr 2014 AIR(SCW2449 and another judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case titled as  Municipal Committee Sirhind Versus Sukhdev Singh 2002(1)R.CR (Civil) 275. The learned Counsel for the appellants further argued that memorandum not accompanied by Vakalatnama duly executed by the appellant is though mandatory defect but the said defect can be rectified. In support of his contention, he referred to a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Uday Shnkar Triyar Versus Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh & Anr 2006(1) Apex Court Judgments (SC)166 ; 2006(1)SCC75.

9.            Written statement on behalf of the opposite parties/appellants was signed by Sh.Amit Rana, Branch Manager  which was accompanied by his duly sworn affidavit, though was not notarized.  Learned Counsel for the appellants has placed on record power of attorney executed on 11.9.2012 by Sh.Malay Ghosh, President & Executive Director as the authorized signatory, pursuant to the Board Resolution dated August 07, 2012  in favour of Shri S.V.Sunder Krishnan, Chief Risk Officer, Shri Sunil Agrawal, Chief Financial Officer and Ms.Puja Mehta, Company Secretary.  Alongwith the appeal, proper authorization letter and Vakalatnama of the Counsel are attached. Though proper authorization letter in favour of Sh.Amit Rana, Branch Manager is not there with the written statement, and there is only memo of appearance of the Counsel,  yet this defect can be rectified.

10.              The Ld. Lower Commission has not considered the written statement and other pleadings of the appellants/opposite parties while deciding the complaint.   In our considered opinion, an opportunity should be afforded to the appellants/opposite parties to rectify the procedural defects. Accordingly we grant one more opportunity to the appellants/Opposite Parties to file proper Vakalatnama of the Counsel and proper notarized affidavit of the authorized person.

11.              For the reasons recorded above,  both the appeals are accepted.  The order impugned is set aside. The complaint is remanded back to the Ld. Lower Commission, with a direction to afford one opportunity to the opposite parties to file Vakaltnama of the Counsel and to rectify the procedural defects and decide the same, afresh, after taking in consideration written statement and evidence of the opposite parties,  in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 

                   However, before parting with the order, we deem it apposite to burden the appellants/ Opposite Parties  with costs of Rs.5,000/- in each appeal.

12.              The Parties are directed to appear, before Ld. Lower Commission on 05.09.2023, at 10.30 A.M., for further proceedings. 

13.              The Ld. Lower Commission record, alongwith a certified copy of the order, be sent back immediately, so as to reach there, well before the date  fixed i.e. 05.09.2023..

14.               All the pending applications in both the appeals  also stand disposed off accordingly

15.              Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

16.              The file be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.