Bihar

StateCommission

A/19/2017

Yogendra Prasad - Complainant(s)

Versus

BM, LIC Danapur Patna & Ors - Opp.Party(s)

Adv. Mohan Lal

25 Apr 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BIHAR, PATNA
FINAL ORDER
 
First Appeal No. A/19/2017
( Date of Filing : 18 Jan 2017 )
(Arisen out of Order Dated 30/11/2016 in Case No. CC/208/2012 of District Patna)
 
1. Yogendra Prasad
Yogendra Prasad, son of Late Shyam Narain Pd, resident of Jhunjunwala Road, PO & PS- Danapur Cantt. Dist- Patna- 801503
Patna
Bihar
...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1. BM, LIC Danapur Patna & Ors
Branch Manager, LIC, Takiyapur, Danapur Municipality Danapur, Dist- Patna- 801303
Patna
Bihar
...........Respondent(s)
 
BEFORE: 
  MISS GITA VERMA PRESIDING MEMBER
  MD. SHAMIM AKHTAR JUDICIAL MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 25 Apr 2024
Final Order / Judgement

Dated: 25.04.2024

Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member)

 

Order

 

  1. This appeal was filed by the complainant, namely Yogendra Prasad against the dismissal order dated 30.11.2016 of complaint case no. 208 of 2012 by the District C. D. R.F, Patna by holding therein that there was no deficiency in service on the part of any member of opposite party. So, the complainant was not entitled to get any relief.
  2. During the pendency of this appeal Yogendra Prasad died and his legal heir Amit Kumar was substituted in his place. So, now he is the complainant – appellant.
  3. The case of complainant was that his son Sumit Kumar took an insurance policy no. 516991518 from LIC of India (O.P. no. 3) for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three lacs) only on 15.09.2009 by paying its first premium of Rs. 7,979/- by cheque no. 101789 of his account at Union Bank of India, Frazer Road, Patna (O.P. no. 4). He was the nominee in the said policy. The insured person died on 24.09.2009 in an accident i.e only after 8 (eight) days of taking the policy. Then, he filed death claim in the office of O.P. no. 3 but it was not settled by assigning the reason that the said cheque had been dis-honoured by the concerned branch of Union Bank of India (O.P. no. 4). Hence, the complaint.
  4. It is the further case of complainant that LIC of India had sent that cheque to its banker Central Bank of India (O.P. Nos. 1 & 2) on the very next day but O.P. no. 2 sent that cheque to Union Bank of India for collection after a delay of more than 5 (five) months. In the mean time, the account of the insred person had been closed as it was his salary account. For this reason, the Union Bank of India returned that cheque to Central Bank of India without honouring it. Therefore, the complainant has sought the reliefs against the O.P- Central Bank of India only for payment of the insurance amount, compensation for mental and physical harassment and cost of litigation on the ground that his death claim could not be paid by LIC of India due to in ordinate delay on the part of O.P. –Central Bank of India and it amounted to gross deficiency in service on the part of Central Bank of India – O.P.
  5. Heard the learned counsels for both parties and perused the record.
  6. The District Forum on considering the evidences on record has held in the impugned order that the LIC of India had sent the concerned cheque to its banker Central Bank of India on the very next day (16.09.2009) for collection. So, there was no deficiency in service on the part of that O.P. the central Bank of India had sent that cheque to Union Bank of India after a delay of only five days. The delay of five days was not a long delay. So, there was no deficiency in service on the part of Central Bank of India also. On the basis of these findings the District Forum has dismissed the complaint.
  7. The finding of District Forum that the cheque was sent by Central Bank of India to Union Bank of India after a delay of only five days appears to be incorrect because the insured person had died on 24.09.2009. On the fifth day of 16.09.2009 or even on its eighth day how could the account of insured person at Union Bank of India be closed. It must have been closed after 24.09.2009, the date of his death. All the concerned branches of the concerned banks are in Patna itself. So, cheque transmission/collection could be done very well on the same day or at best on the next working day. The delay of even five days is also in violation of various policies framed by nationalized bank and direction of Reserve Bank of India. So, we differ from the aforesaid finding of District Forum and we are unable to accept it. We find and hold that a delay of much more than that was caused by the Central Bank of India in sending that cheque to Union Bank of India and that very slackness on the part of central Bank of India coupled with the closure of account of insured persons at Union Bank of India due to his death resulted in dis-honour of that cheque by Union Bank of India and in consequence thereof it resulted further in repudiation of the death claim of complainant by LIC of India.
  8. In view of facts stated above, the question that arises in this case for determination is that was the complainant a consumer of central Bank of India? Whether he could ask for the reliefs mentioned in the complaint petition from Central Bank of India? The District Forum has not considered this legal issue in this case. In answer to it we find and hold that since the complainant had not purchased or hired any service from Central Bank of India he was not a consumer of that bank according to the definition of the term “CONSUMER” under The Consumer Protection Act. So, his claim against O.P.-Central Bank of India is legally not maintainable. As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, we also dismiss it for different reason than the District Forum.
  9. In view of foregoing discussions the appeal is dismissed on contest. Parties to bear their own cost. But in the interest of customers of Central Bank of India let a copy of this order be sent to its Head Office for information and needful.

 

 

              Md. Shamim Akhtar                                                                                                                Gita Verma

           (Judicial Member)                                                                                                                 (Judicial Member)

 

Md. Fariduzzama

 
 
[ MISS GITA VERMA]
PRESIDING MEMBER
 
 
[ MD. SHAMIM AKHTAR]
JUDICIAL MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.