Sri Rabinarayan Nayak, aged about 47 years
S/o: Late Prabodha Nayak
Vill: Khamarsahi, PO: Panchutikri
PS:Bansada, Via: Ghanteswar
Dist:Bhadrak-756129
…………………………Complainant
(Vrs.)
1. The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank
Name: Prince Duria-CBM
398, GT Road, Burdwan-1
2. The Bank Manager,
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Bhadrak Branch
………………………….Opp.Parties
Order No.11 dt.08.07.2015:
The case of the Complainant is that he is a policy holder of ICICI Prudential Life bearing No.16745746. He deposited Rs.30,100/- on 02.07.2013 at O.P.No.1-Branch against his aforesaid policy number. The said amount was collected by a Lady employee (name unknown) in the Branch of O.P.No.1. After receipt of the said amount, the said lady employee handed over a receipt embossing round seal of ICICI Bank Burdwan instead of cash seal. Later, the Complainant came to know that the amount has not been deposited in his aforesaid policy number. Thereafter, the Complainant informed the Bank Manager about the whole matter and the Branch Manager assured to solve the matter after enquiry. After waiting for a long period, the Complainant met the O.P.No.1 who told that the cash has not been deposited in their bank. So finding no other alternative the Complainant filed this case on 18.02.2015 claiming Rs.30,100/- towards premium amount, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs.2,000/- towards litigation cost, all totaling to Rs.42,100/- from the O.Ps.
O.P.No.1 filed written version denying deposit of Rs.30,100/- on 02.07.2013 in cash towards the premium of his life insurance Policy bearing No.16745746 at ICICI Bank’s Branch at Burdwan. The Complainant being an educated citizen should have been aware that no receipt/acknowledgement slip is valid unless it has been properly signed and stamped by the recipient. The unsigned deposit slip being presented by the Complainant is an invalid document of evidence and does not evidenced deposit of any sum with the O.P.-Bank or any of its employees. Further, if at all any amount was deposited by the Complainant, it is sheet negligence on the part of the Complainant to not have requested and insisted for a policy premium receipt when the Complainant is fully aware that upon payment of premium a receipt is generated / issued in favour of the policy holder instantaneously. Further, the deposit slip bears a round stamp instead of cash received stamp. It has been submitted by O.P.No.1 that despite the alleged deposit having been made on 02.07.2013, the Complainant delayed unreasonably to bring to the notice of the O.P. the instant matter. The O.P.No.1 upon the Complainant’s visit, made enquiries with the Complainant in order to assist the Complainant in resolving the issue, however Complainant neither could the Complainant help the Bank officials with the name of the person who allegedly collected the aforesaid amount from him nor could video footage be retrieved as the Complainant delayed in informing the O.P.-Bank and informed that cash was handed over at the front office where camera coverage is not there. Further, the Complainant did not feel necessary to give a written complaint or legal notice to the O.Ps if his issues were not being resolved and instead directly filed the instant complaint before the Forum after lapse of considerable period of time. O.P.No.1 denied that the Complainant is entitled to refund Rs.30,100/- along with interest or any amount towards mental agony, harassment or cost.
O.P.No.2 filed written version denying the averments made in the complainant petition. According to O.P.No.2, the Complainant applied for the Guaranteed Savings Insurance Plan E05. Based on the duly filled in and signed application Form No.OL00311296, the O.P.No.2 issued a Policy bearing No.16745746 on 08.08.2012 and dispatched the policy document on 11.12.12. The risk on life commenced from 19.06.2012.The said policy is in force till 19.06.2015 and total premium paid under the said policy is Rs.90,300/- at an annual premium of Rs.30,100/-.
We have heard the Complainant and the Ld.Counsel appearing for O.Ps and perused the documents available on record. It is submitted by the Complainant that he had deposited Rs.30,100/- on 02.07.2013 in O.P.No.1-Bank against his Policy bearing No.16745746 vide Policy Account No.039305003104 towards 2nd premium amount and obtained deposit slip with seal from a lady employee of O.P.No.1-Bank. Later when he went to deposit 3rd premium against the said policy after one year came to know that the said 2nd premium amount has not been deposited in his policy number. On the other hand the Ld.Counsel for O.P.No.1 submitted that the deposit slip bears a round stamp instead of cash received stamp, the Complainant delayed the matter unreasonably to bring this fact to the notice of the O.P.No.1, the Complainant neither helped the Bank officials with the name of the person who allegedly collected the aforesaid amount nor could the video footage be retrieved as the Complainant delayed in informing the O.P.-Bank, cash was handed over by the Complainant at the front office where camera coverage is not there and Complainant did not feel necessary to give a written complaint or legal notice to the O.Ps if his issues were not being resolved and instead directly filed the instant complaint.
In support of his case, the Complainant has filed copy of letter dt.23.09.2014 of Customer Service, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company wherein the O.Ps have taken the plea that the Branch always gives cash received stamp against cash transaction and no such stamp is available on the deposit slip. As such, the Branch is unable to trace the said transaction. The Complainant has filed Xerox copy of cash deposit receipt dt.02.07.2013 with seal of O.P.No.1-Bank along with another deposit receipt for Rs.35,375/- dt. 07.08.2014 made in the Bank of O.P.No.2 to prove that the cash has been deposited in his S.B.account No.077401505419 with the same type of stamp as embossed by O.P.No.1-Bank. On perusal of both the deposit slips dt.02.07.2013 and 07.08.2014, we do not find any difference but initial of receiving Bank employee is found in deposit slip dt.07.08.2014 whereas the same is lacking in deposit slip dt.02.07.2013. If no initial was put inside the seal of the Bank, it was the fault of the O.P.-Bank and the Complainant has nothing to do with it. It is really suspicious how the O.P.No.1-Bank allowed a lady on 02.07.2013 in cash counter to receive cash from Complainant and issued the deposit slip embossing the Branch seal? The lady who received the cash has clearly written in her handwriting that “cash for policy No.16745746” vide Policy account No. 039305003104. It has been alleged by O.P.No.1 that the Complainant could not help the Bank officials with the name of the person who allegedly collected the aforesaid amount from him and delayed the matter for which video footage could not be retrieved. It has been further stated by the O.P.No.1 in his written version that the Complainant handed over cash at the front office where camera coverage is not there. It is found that both the statements of the O.P.No.1 are contradictory to each other; on the one hand the O.P.No.1 says that the Complainant delayed the matter for which the video footage could not be retrieved and on the other hand says that camera coverage has not been made at front office. This is nothing but only to disown the liability of O.P.No.1 in the matter. Had the O.P.No.1taken sincere step, he could find out the lady from Bank who received the amount and did not deposit the same in the ICICI Policy account of the Complainant from her handwriting who had filled up the deposit slip even though no initial has been made by that lady. It is unbelievable that CC Camera has not been installed by the O.P.No.1-Bank in an important place where cash is received. As such, burden lies on O.P.No.1 to prove their case by producing CC TV footage of the front office that no deposit was made by the Complainant himself against his Policy Account No.039305003104 for policy No. 16745746 on 02.07.2013. This has not been done by the O.P.No.1. Further, it has been alleged by the O.P.No.1 that the Complainant without giving any written complaint or legal notice filed the present case is nothing but after thought. The Complainant has filed Xerox copy of his letter dt.28.10.2014 wherein he had intimated the O.P.No.1that his 2nd insurance premium for Rs.30,100/- deposited in the branch has not been mentioned in his policy No.16745746 and requested to enquire into the matter. This letter was received by O.P.No.1-Bank on 28.10.2014 with Bank seal and signature of the recipient. So it cannot be said that the O.P.No.1 is unaware of the fact and waiting for a considerable period, the Complainant filed this case on 18.02.2015. In order to continue the policy in question, the Complainant was forced to deposit Rs.30,100/- towards 2nd premium against his policy No. 16745746. All these things taken together go to proves that there has been deficiency in service on the part of O.P.No.1 in depositing the premium amount of Rs.30,100/- against the Policy No. 16745746 which was received from the Complainant on 02.07.2013. Accordingly, it is ordered:
O R D E R
In the result, the complainant is allowed against the O.P.No.1 and dismissed against O.P.No.2. The O.P.No.1 is directed to refund Rs.30.100/- to the Complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f.02.07.2013 along with litigation cost of Rs.1000/- within a period of 30 days of receipt of this order.
