MR. NAYANANANDA DASH,MEMBER-
The case is about alleged negligence by the Bank and also the Insurance Company towards payment of claim amount due to accident vehicle and subsequent repairing cost along with compensation towards loss and mental agony.
2. Brief facts of the case is such that the complainant had availed a loan from Op-1 Bank for the purchases of one vehicle being a Bolero bearing Regd. No.OD-05-D-7301. The said vehicle was insured on dt. 21.08.14 by the complainant with OpNo.2 insurance Company by issuing a cheque bearing No. 31525 dt. 21.8.14 for Rs. 18,245 in favour of the Op No.2 and the cover note was issued by the Op-2 validity period being from dt.23.8.14 to midnight of dt.22.8.15 and the no. of the policy being 163200/31/14/6300002033. The said cheque was drawn on Allahabad Bank, Bhubaneswar by Annpurna Dash, the Complainant. As per the version of the Complainant, on dt.8.9.14, the Op-2 Insurance Company sent one notice on internet and disclosed that the premium against policy No.163200/31/14/6300002033 of vehicle No. OD-05-D-7301 vide cheque No. 31525 dt. 21.08.14 drawn by Annapurna Dash on Allahabad Bank for Rs. 18245/- has been returned for reason given i.e, “other reasons” for which they said Policy was cancelled. Further the Op-2 did not intimate this fact to the complainant and did not return the cheque. The Complainant after getting information through internet regarding return of the cheque and cancellation of policy contacted the Op-1 bank but the Op bank did not co-operate the complainant for knowing the reason of cheque return. The Op-1 Bank avoided to give sufficient reasons why he said cheque was dishonoured. The Complainant has stated that the Complainant’s father-in-law is a pension holder and having sufficient balance but due to indifferent and non cooperative attitude of the Op-1 Bank, the Complainant could not know the reason of dishonour of the cheque and could not take further action for the revival of the policy. Similarly the Op-2 did not inform the Complainant on the very day of return of the cheque so that she could have taken steps for payment of Rs. 18,245/- for revival of the Policy. Therefore the Complainant has held both the Ops responsible for the loss she sustained and has held that Op-1 is more responsible for the loss she suffered. The loss was in the form of accident her vehicle met with a such driving Auto on dt. 28.8.14 by which the vehicle sustained damage and one person died. The Complainant had to spend Rs. 80,000/- for the vehicle and the Op-2 although intimated regarding the accident of the vehicle and their surveyor inquiring report to their office on dt. 28.8.14, during that time also, the Op-2 did not tell the Complainant regarding dishonour of the Cheque. Even on dt. 9.9.14, the Op-2 had sent a letter to the Complainant that in respect of Complainant’s intimation dt. 1.9.14 in respect of claim, it is observed that the driving license of the driver is not authorized to drive the insured vehicle for which the policy should not be considered. Here also the Op-2 did not intimate the Complainant regarding the Cheque being dishonoured. The Complainant’s father-in-law whose cheque was issued for insurance of the vehicle and who had sufficient balance in his account, when contacted the Op-1 to know the reason of dishonour of the insurance Cheque could not receive satisfactory answer and the Op-1 reportedly avoided to disclose the reason of the cheque being dishonoured. Therefore the Complainant had to suffer heavily and claim of Rs.80,000/-which was spent for repair of the vehicle after it met whit accident and Rs. 4,00,000/- for compensation towards loss & mental agony and also 12% interest Per annual from the date of filing of the case.
3. On Being Noticed, Both the Ops i.e, Op-1 Bank and OP-2 Insurance Company appeared before the Forum and committed to present their case through their learned counsel. But while, the Op-1 submitted their written version, the Op-2 i.e, the National Insurance Company did not file written statement as per the provisions Op-2 hence set ex-parte. The Op-1,Bank submitted the written version and refuted the allegation of the Complainant against it. The Op-1 states that, the Complainant had availed the loan for purchase of a Bolero and the vehicle was insured by Op-2 for which the Complainant had given the cheque no. 31525 for Rs. 18,245/- of Allahabad Bank. The Policy was made but ultimately, the cheque was dishonoured by the Bank for which the policy stood cancelled from the beginning as per provision contained in the Policy itself. The Policy was to be effective from dt. 23.8.14 to dt. 22.8.15. But mean while the vehicle met with an accident on dt. 28.8.14. But due to the cheque being dishonoured and the policy being cancelled since beginning the vehicle was not covered under insurance and the Insurance Company did not entertain the claim. The Ops Bank’s contention is that the Insurance cheque not being honoursed by the Bank is the creation of the Complainant and the Bank had no role in the cheque being dishonoured because the cheque was not properly drawn. The Op-Bank further tells that the cheque belongs to Mr. Prahalad Prasad Dash, the father-in-law of the Complainant and it should have been drawn by him but it was wrongly drawn by the Complainant for which the cheque was not honoured, although there was sufficient balance in the Account.
4. Looking at all the allegations and counter allegations, it is pertinent to note that the vehile was insured the Complainant by giving a cheque to the Insurance company, the Policy was issued with periodicity of one year from dt. 23.8.14 to dt. 22.8.15. These was sufficient balance in the Account to cover the amount of cheque. The Cheque should have been drawn by Prahalad Prasad Dash, the real Account holder and authorized to operate the Account and draw the cheque, but instead it was drawn by Annapurna Dash who was a third person so far as drawl of cheque is concerned for which the cheque was dishonoured. The Insurance policy as a result of dishonour of the cheque stood cancelled from the beginning and the vehicle meeting with an accident just a few days after the policy was created invited all the problems for which none including OP-1& Op-2 but the Complaint is responsible. It is clear from the record submitted by the Complaint is that the Op No.2 had intimated on dt. 8.9.14 about the cheque being dishonoured to the complainant. The Insurance Company had intimated the Complainant about the driving License of the driver who was not authorized to drive the vehicle, but this thing is irrelevant since the big question is the vehicle was not under the cover of Insurance on the date the vehicle met with accident or in other words at the material time of accident the vehicle was having no ‘insurable interest’.
Therefore taking into account the whole fact and the documents produced in this case, we cannot hold OP-1 or Op-2 ‘in any way’ responsible for the loss suffered by the complainant and therefore we dismiss the case without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Court, this the 18th day of April, 2017.
