D.o.F: 23/01/09 D.o.O:31/10/09IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.22/09 Dated this, the 31st day of October 2009. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER T.R.Krishnan,S/o T.V.Raman, Vrindavan, Malankundu, : Complainant Pallikkara II village, Po.Bekal (Adv.Babuchandran.K,Kasaragod) Branch Manager, LIC of India Kanhangad Branch, : Opposite party Kanhangad. (P.V.Jayarajan,Adv.Kasaragod) ORDER SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT Shortly stated, Complainant T.R. Krishnan surrendered his LIC policy in 2005 for Rs.58,000/- and the opposite party paid only Rs.46,000/- to him. Though the complainant had given written instruction to opposite party to send the balance to the Kasaragod Dist. Co-operative Bank, Palakkunnu Branch at Uduma from where he availed a loan, but he came to know that the opposite party has not credited the said Rs.12,000/- in his Bank account. Thereafter he made several enquires with opposite party but there were no proper response and finally when he returned back from Gulf on 18/11/08,he filed a written complaint before opposite party. Subsequently, it was informed that they by a mistake sent the amount to Kasaragod Dist Co-operative Bank Kanhangad branch and the amount was lying in their suspense account. Later opposite party take steps to transfer the branch of Palakunnu KDC Bank where the complainant maintaining the account . As a result, the KDC Bank Palakunnu lost their faith upon the complainant and he had to pay interest and penal interest for the loan unnecessarily. Hence the complaint. 2. According to opposite party the policy of the complainant was lapsed owing to non payment and hence on the basis of the request dtd.30/1/06 the opposite party settled the surrender value for Rs.47502/- and subsequently on the request dated 2/11/06, the opposite party refunded Rs,12,000/-. But in spite of the request of the complainant to credit the amount in KDC Bank Palakunnu branch at Uduma by mistake it was sent through local delivery to KDC Bank Kanhangad branch. The KDC bank Kanhangad branch instead of sending back the cheque to opposite party wrongly kept the amount with them and that caused the delay for passing the amount to the complainant. It is the further case of the OP that the complainant had not give any opportunity to rectify the bonafide mistake by intimating the non receipt of the amount in November 2006 itself., The opposite party is therefore not liable to pay any damages to the complainant and if at all any damages are caused then the Kasaragod Dist Co-operative Bank Kanhangad branch is liable to pay the said damage for illegally retaining the amount from 4/11/2006 to 17/11/2008. Therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 3. The documents produced by the complainant was marked as Exts.A1 to A3. On the side of opposite party the Senior Manager KDC Bank Kanhangad examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B7 marked. Both sides heard and the documents perused. 4. DW1 deposed that the amount was sent by LIC favouring the complainant Krishnan on 4/11/06 itself. Since the name of the account holder of the cheque does not tally with the name of account holder of their bank, the amount kept in the suspense liability account on 4/11/06 itself. The amount was in their suspense liability account till 16/11/08. This amount has been transferred to Palakunnu branch of KDC bank on 17/11/08. They knew that the cheque was issued by LIC. They have not communicated the LIC about the cheque. DW1 further deposed that if there is any complaint with regard to the cheque delivered to them they have to communicate to the party who delivered the cheque. So apparently it is clear that the whole confusion was caused due to the misdelivery of cheque by LIC to the KDC Bank Kanhangad branch instead of KDC Bank Palakunnu branch and the subsequent retention of the cheque amount by the KDC bank Kanhangad branch. 5. The counsel for the opposite party Sri..P.V.Jayaraj vehemently argued that the KDC bank Kanhangad branch should have been impleaded as a party to the proceedings and the damages if any sustained to the complainant ought to have been recovered from them. Though his contention appears to be genuine, there are certain hurdles to implead KDC Bank in the party array . As rightly contended by the learned counsel Sri.Babuchandran appearing for the complainant, there is no privity of contract and consumer relationship between the complainant and the KDC Bank Kanhangad branch and the complainant has not availed any service for consideration either directly or indirectly from them. But it is true that the complainant has suffered due to the illegal act of KDC Bank and the complainant is entitled for the damages for the said sufferings. Therefore we pass the following order. Complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- by way of compensation with a cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which the complainant is entitled for interest @9% for the said compensation of Rs.4000/- from the date of complaint till payment. After paying the amount it would be open to the opposite party to recover the said amount from KDC Bank Kanhangad branch through appropriate proceedings. Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts: A1-5/12/08- Letter issued by OP A2-24/11/08 - -do- A3- copy of Savings Bank account ledger B1-22/1/04-office copy of the reminder issued to the complainant B2-6/2/06-Receipt of Rs.47,502/- B3-21/10/08-complaint issued to OP B4-21/10/08-office copy of letter issued by OP to Corp. Bank.Kgd. B5-22/10/08- Reply of Ext.B4 B6-23/10/08-Office copy of letter issued by OP to complainant B7-20/3/08-letter from KDC Bank,Kanhangad. DW1- Rajan.K, Sr.Manager,KDC Bank,Kanhangad. Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER PRESIDENT eva/ /Forwarded by Order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
......................K.T.Sidhiq
......................P.Ramadevi | | 
