Life Insurance Corporation of India and another vs Sumit Kumar and others

K. S. Gupta, Presiding Member.-Petitioner opposite party issued pamphlet. On the left corner thereof it was printed in bold letters, "Hurry up! Upto 1 March, 2005, get unit of Rs. 10 for Rs. 10. Do not allow golden opportunity slip out of your hands". Each of the respondents/complainants applied for 5,000 units by paying amount of Rs.50,000 to the petitioner. However, they were given 4,885 units each on the ground that allocation rate on the date of purchase of units was more than Rs. 10 per unit. Respondents, thus, filed joint complaint which was contested by the petitioner. The District Forum allowed the complaint by the order dated 22.2.2006 with direction to the petitioner to further issue 115 units to each of the respondents. Appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the State Commission with direction to pay compensation of Rs. 1,150 instead of issuing 115 units to each of the respondents.

Submission advanced by Shri Ashok Kashyap for petitioner is that the pamphlet relied upon by the respondents had no force in law. In the terms and conditions of "Future Plus Scheme" which were read by the respondents, it was clearly provided that the units were to be allocated on N.A.V. obtaining on the date of purchase and since the N.A.V. of unit on the date of purchase of units by the respondents was more than Rs. 10 per unit the respondents were rightly allocated less number of units. In support of the submission, our attention was drawn to condition Nos. 9 and 10 of the proposal form at pages 45 to 48. These conditions state that the terms and conditions of the proposed plan were explained by the agent and were fully understood by the respondents. Copy of English translation of pamphlet is at page 20A. As may be seen from aforesaid order dated 11.8.2006 the State Commission was of the view that there was likelihood of a common man being misled and attracted by the term given in pamphlet that a unit worth Rs.10 will be issued for Rs. 10 and it was, thus, a case of unfair trade practice. We are in agreement with this view taken by the State Commission. Reliance on the condition Nos. 9 and 10 of the proposal form has no relevance in the matter. There is, thus, no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the C.P. Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed.