Haryana

StateCommission

A/990/2015

NAINITAL BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ASHISH KUMAR - Opp.Party(s)

G.S.AHLUWALIA

10 Dec 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, HARYANA,PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No.990 of 2015

Date of Institution: 18.11.2015

 Date of Decision: 10.12.2015

 

The Nainital Bank Ltd., DSS-10, HUDA Market, Sector 29, Faridabad, through its Branch Manager.

     …..Appellant

                                                Versus

1. Ashish Kumar S/o Shiv Narain R/o H.No.235, Ward No.7, Gandhi Nagar, Tehsil Charki Dadri, Distt. Bhiwani (Haryana), proprietor of M/s Jai Shri Balaji Transport Service, at present R/o near Pepsi Depot, Rajinder Market, Link Road, Sector 28, Faridabad-121001.
2. M/s Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Narayan Manzil 416-412, 4^th floor 23, Barakhamba Road Connaught Place New Delhi-110001.

         …..Respondents

CORAM:   Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.
                   Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.

 

Present:-    Mr.G.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the appellant.

ORDER

URVASHI AGNIHOTRI MEMBER:

 

1. The Nainital Bank Ltd. Faridabad, is in appeal against the Order dated 19.10.2015 passed by the District consumer disputes Redressal Forum (For short “District Forum”), Faridabad, whereby the complaint of the complainant has been allowed.
2. Sh.Ashish Kumar-complainant/respondent filed a complaint before the district forum, Faridabad submitting that he had been maintaining a current Account No.100455 with respondent no.1. After checking that there was sufficient balance in his bank account, the complainant issued a cheque no.089698 dated 05.03.2009 for Rs.13,826/- drawn on Nainital Bank Limited, Sector 29, Faridabad in favour of M/s Iffco  Tokyo General Insurance company-respondent No.2, for insurance of his vehicle No.HR 19E-0899. The respondent no.2 issued the insurance policy No.42227876 dated 20.03.2009 valid for the period 07.03.2009 to 06.03.2010 in the name of the complainant.  On 05.05.2009 an accident of the said vehicle occurred resulting in fatal injuries to one Naveen Kumar.  The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, which was allowed by awarding an amount of Rs.3,81,570/- against the complainant, as there was no insurance cover to the vehicle on account of the cancellation of the policy.  During the proceedings of this petition the complainant came to know that the cheque issued by him in favour of respondent no.2 towards insurance premium had been dishonoured due to insufficient funds and insurance policy of his vehicle was cancelled.  On obtaining the account statement for the said period it was revealed that on 14.03.2009 a cheque no.103497 for Rs.25485/- was found debited in the account of the complainant, though the said cheque was never issued by him. On enquiry respondent no.1 admitted the fact that due to some clerical mistake the debit entry dated 14.03.2009 of cheque no.103497 for Rs.25485/- was made in the account of the complainant.  They had reversed the entry on 06.09.2010 and regretted the inconvenience caused to the complainant in this matter.  The respondent No.2-Insurance Company was also responsible for causing deficiency in service by not informing the complainant regarding the dishonouring of cheque towards insurance premium and cancellation of policy and the complainant suffered monetary loss of Rs.3,81,570/- due to the wrongful act and conduct of the respondents.
3. According to OP-1-appellant, the complainant could not blame the bank for his own misconduct in not notifying the discrepancy detected by him immediately when statement of account was received by him.  The discrepancy in statement of account in March, 2009 was brought to the notice of the bank on 18.08.2010 after lapse of more than a year and five months.  The appellant pleaded that due to some clerical mistake the debit entry dated 14.03.2009 for Rs.25485/- was wrongly made in the account of the complainant and they had already regretted the inconvenience caused to the complainant.   
4. According to the O.P.-2, the complainant issued a cheque No.089698 for Rs.13826/- in favour of M/s Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. and the cheque was dishonoured by the insured’s bank i.e. Nainital Bank Ltd. on account of insufficient funds. The MACT in its award authorized respondent no.2 to recover the awarded amount from the complainant.
5. Learned District forum after considering pleadings of parties and evidence, allowed the complaint and granted relief as under:-

“Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.4,04,052/- alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization of amount within 30 (thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are further directed to pay Rs.30,000/- as compensation towards mental  agony, harassment as well as Rs.5500/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.  However, it is made clear that half of the aforesaid amounts shall be paid by respondent No.2.”

6. Aggrieved therefrom, O.P.No.1.-Bank has come up in appeal.
7. Arguments heard. File perused.
8. In appeal before us, it has vehemently been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-Bank that there was inadvertent mistake on the part of the bank officials in debiting cheque of some other person to the account of the complainant, but, at the same time it was  negligence on the part of the complainant also as he did not bring the mistake to the knowledge of the Bank promptly. The learned counsel has further contended that the Bank had immediately thereafter reversed the entry and regretted the inconvenience, therefore, the learned District Forum should not have allowed the complaint. 
9. It has been proved on record that complainant had credit balance of Rs.26,000/- in his account when he issued cheque.  It is admitted fact that complainant has been maintaining current account with O.P./No.1-appellant and issued a cheque for Rs.13826/- bearing cheque No.089698 on 05.03.2009 towards premium for insurance of his vehicle NO. HR-19E-0899.  It is also not disputed that complainant had sufficient balance in his account to honour the said cheque.  O.P.No.1-appellant also admits that the debit entry was incorrectly made in the account of the complainant on 14.03.2009 for Rs.25485/- and this brought the credit balance in the account of the complainant below Rs.13826/- and this led to dishonour of cheque issued by the complainant in favour of the O.P.No.2 towards premium of his vehicle. Consequently because of dishonour of the cheque, O.P.No.2 cancelled the policy.  Another admitted fact is that the vehicle met with an accident on 05.05.2009 leading to death of  Naveen Kumar.  Consequently the legal representative of the deceased filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (In short “M.A.C.T.) and the award of Rs.3,81,570/- was passed against the complainant.  As there was no insurance cover to the vehicle, on account of the cancellation of policy, thus liability of award was fastened upon the complainant which was only because of cancellation of policy due to dishonour of cheque issued by the complainant towards insurance premium. The admission by O.P.No.1-appellant that the debit entry of Rs.25485/- was wrongly made is not attributable to the complainant. Any wrongful act on the part of the O.P. cannot make the complainant to suffer the loss.  Once the O.P.No.1-appellant admits it’s fault, it must bear the consequences.  Learned District Forum has already taken care of the fact that even insurance company was also partly negligent in cancelling the policy without giving notice to the complainant and affording opportunity to pay the premium, as the cheque of the complainant has been dishonoured. Had the insurance company-O.P.No.2 issued the notice which was mandatorily required, even this could also have avoided the consequential liability.  Thus learned District Forum rightly allowed the complaint of the complainant. No ground to interfere in the impugned order.
10. Hence, this appeal is dismissed.

 

December 10th, 2015 Urvashi Agnihotri                                R.K.Bishnoi,                                                   Member                                                Judicial Member                                             Addl. Bench                                        Addl.Bench                

S.K.