Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       The complainant  has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (now under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019)  on the allegations that he is having saving bank account bearing No.654610110007122 with Opposite Party bank. Further alleges, that the complainant has purchased insurance policy from National Insurance Company Limited, Bagha Purana for his car Volks Wagon Vento bearing RC No.PB29M-7722 for IDV Rs.4,54,000/- and paid premium of Rs.17,480/- through cheque No,.057683 dated 24.11.2019 drawn on Bank of India (Opposite Party) and said policy was issued to the complainant subject to cheque realization. Thereafter, the vehicle of the complainant met with an accident on 01.12.2019 and he has to bear an amount of Rs.32,130/- as expenses. The complainant informed the insurance company regarding the said accident, but he was surprised  to hear that the cheque which was issued by the complainant to the insurance company was dishonored due to the reason ‘funds insufficient’ dated 30.11.2019 and the policy was cancelled by the insurance company. But however, there were sufficient  balance of Rs.2,68,614/- in the account of the complainant, but said cheque was dishonoured due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Party. Hence, due the negligence and deficiency in service the complainant suffered not only mental tension and harassment but also financial loss  of repair charges of Rs.32,130/- paid on account of repair charges of accidental vehicle.  Thereafter, the complainant made so many request to the Opposite Party to make good the loss of the complainant, but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.     In this way, said conduct of the Opposite Party clearly amounts to deficiency in service and as such, the Complainants left with no other alternative but to file the present complaint.  Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       Opposite Party may be directed to pay a sum of rs.32,130/- alongwith interest  and also to pay Rs.30,000/- on account of compensation and Rs.20,000/- as litigation expenses or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission may deem fit be also granted.

2.       Opposite Party  appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing  the written version  on the ground inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. It is submitted that in fact the cheque in question was dishonoured by the online central clearing house located at New Delhi due to some technical reasons on 30.11.2019 and this fact was very much updated to the insurer on the very same day and it was obligatory  and expected from said insurer that it would inform the complainant immediately about this fact that the cheque has been dishonoured for the whatever reasons but the said insurer did not inform the complainant.  Meanwhile the complainant met with an accident on 1.12.2019 and at the time of accident, the policy was not yet cancelled, but in order to avoid payment of the claim  of the loss of the complainant, said insurer cancelled the policy vide endorsement dated 4.1.2020. Had the said insurer informed the complainant about the dishonour of the cheque in time, then the complainant would have submitted another cheque for the payment of premium and his loss would have been indemnified under the said insurance policy.  Moreover, the cheque is cleared through online clearing house and there are possibilities of human errors not being negligence while passing the said cheques in huge and bulk quantity.   Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are also denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

3.       In order to  prove  his  case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C1  alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C15 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand,  to rebut the evidence of the complainant,  Opposite Party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Puneet Goel Ex.OP1 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party.

5.       We have heard the ld.counsel for the parties and  gone through the documents placed  on record.

6.       During the course of arguments, both the ld.counsel for the Complainant as well as Opposite Party have mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint as well as in the written reply  respectively. We have perused the rival contentions of  the parties and also gone through the record on file. The main contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant is that there were sufficient balance in the account of the complainant, but due to the negligence  and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, said cheque has been dishonoured and as such, the policy which was purchased by the complainant for his vehicle was cancelled due to dishonor of the cheque in question. On the other hand, the ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the complainant on the ground that   the cheque in question was dishonoured by the online central clearing house located at New Delhi due to some technical reasons on 30.11.2019 and this fact was very much updated to the insurer on the very same day and it was obligatory  and expected from said insurer that it would inform the complainant immediately about this fact that the cheque has been dishonoured for the whatever reasons but the said insurer did not inform the complainant.  Menwhile the complainant met with an accident on 1.12.2019 and at the time of accident, the policy was not yet cancelled, but in order to avoid payment of the claim  of the loss of the complainant, said insurer cancelled the policy vide endorsement dated 4.1.2020. But we do not agree with the aforesaid contention of the ld.counsel for the complainant. When there was sufficient balance in the account of the complainant, how the cheque which was issued against the policy premium has been dishonoured and due to this dishonour of the cheque, the complainant has suffered huge loss due to cancellation of the policy and further due to non payment of the repair charges of Rs.32,130/- which were spent by the complainant.   Moreover, the  banks must be ever vigilant and solicitious about the interests of their customers departure from such standard can cause inconvenience not only to stray individuals but widespread economic disaster. The Banks should therefore be enjoined to maintain their services efficient and above approach. In view of the above it amounts to deficiency in service for which bank is bound to compensate. N.Sahadevan Vs. Manager, Syndicate Bank 1991(2) CPR 617 (SCDRC- Kerala). Furthermore, in case,  N.Raveendran Vs. Branch Manager, State Bank of India 1991(2) CPR 473 (SCDRC-Kerala) it is held, that  due to the wrongful dishonour of the cheques, the complainant was stranded at a very far off place from his home and it resulted in loss, mental agony and hardship to him. The primary duty of a Bank is to safeguard and protect the interest of their customer. It was held that if there has been a lapse or an omission committed by the officials of the Bank and if some inconvenience were caused to a customer due to the omission, negligence or default of the Bank, it amounts to a defective service according to the Consumer Protection Act.  Moreover, it is a common knowledge that when an account holder draws a cheque in favour of the bank itself, it is undoubtedly for the purpose of utilizing that amount by the bank for any of the specified directions of the customer. In view of this, we found that due to the negligence on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant has suffered loss and there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

7.       Undisputedly, the complainant has  spent Rs.32,130/- for the repair of his vehicle and due to non payment of insurance claim, he has suffered financial loss to which the Opposite Party bank is bound to compensate to the complainant.   

8.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we partly allow the complaint of the complainant  and direct the Opposite Party bank to make good the loss of the complainant and to pay  Rs.32,130/- (Rupees thirty two thousands one hundred thirty only) alongwith interest @ 8% PA from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 12.02.2020 till its actual realization. The compliance of this order be made by the Opposite Party within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the Complainant shall be at liberty to get the order enforced through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

9.       Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

          This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.06.2022.