12.10.2016 Present:- Sh.S.S Sohi, counsel for complainant.

IPO worth Rs.200/- deposited with the complaint as fee be deposited in the relevant head as per notification dated.10.02.2005 by the Superintendent.

Heard on the point of admission of complaint. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that opposite party No.1 being agent of opposite party No.2 approached him to sell life insurance policies of opposite party No.2. The complainant purchased two policies in the name of his minor grandson Rajan Setia in the year 2011 and paid premium amount of Rs.32,842/- for both the policies. The policy certificates were not issued to him. Thereafter he paid premium of 2012 amounting to Rs.34,402/- through opposite party No.1.

It is alleged that opposite party No.1 has received premium amount of Rs.32,500/- from the complainant for the year 2013 in the month of May 2013 after withdrawing the same from the bank, but opposite party No.1 did not deposit the same with opposite party No.2. On enquiry, the complainant came to know that the premium for the year 2013 was not deposited by opposite party No.1. He was forced to deposit the premium for the year 2013 alongwith penal interest to get the policies revived for the year 2013 and 2014. After that he asked opposite party No.1 to make him the payment of premium amount or to deposit liquidity amount for the next premium, but to no effect. Opposite party No.1 has committed fraud and cheating with the complainant.

On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has filed this complaint for directions to opposite party No.1 to pay the amount of Rs.32,500/- alongwith interest, which has been received by it fraudulently. Hence this complaint.

From the perusal of complaint, it is clear that the allegations of the complainant against opposite party No.1 are for fraud and cheating. He has also claimed refund of premium amount paid by him to opposite party No.1 for the year 2013. There is nothing to show that the complainant has availed any service from opposite party No.1 to bring him within the definition of 'consumer' as defined under 'Act'.

Of-course, the complainant has also prayed for directions to opposite parties for refund of amount of Rs.1,39,472/-, but there is no allegation that opposite party No.2 has refused to refund this amount received from him. Keeping in view the totality of the case, we have come to the conclusion that the complaint does not fall within the provision of 'Act'. As such, the complaint is not admitted and stands dismissed.

A copy of this order be sent to the complainant free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced:-

12.10.2016

(Jarnail Singh) (M.P.S Pahwa)

Member President