IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/76/2017.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
15.05.17 22.05.17 26.02.19
Complainant: 1.Abdul Malek Sk
S/O- Lt. Karim Box Sk,
Vill- Bilashpur, PO- Kaliganj,
PS- Jalangi,
Pin- 742305
2. “Sonam Enterprise”
represented by his Prop. Ahasan Ali,
S/o Abdul Malek Sk,
Vill- Bilashpur,
PO- Kaliganj, PS- Jalangi,
Pin- 742305
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1.Branch Manager,
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Berhampore Division,
37, R.N. Tagore Road,
PO & PS- Berhampore,
Pin- 742101
2. Branch Manager,
United Bank Of India,
Jalangi Branch
PO & PS- Jalangi,
Pin- 742305
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Sri. Siddhartha Sankar Dhar.
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Sri.Ajay Kumar Bhattacharya for OP 1.
Sri. Subhash Saha for OP 2.
Present: Sri Asish Kumar Senapati………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
Asish Kumar Senapati, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Abdul Malek Sk & Another (here in after referred to as the Complainants) filed the case against Branch Manager, Berhampore Division and Others (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant No.1 has a truck being registration No. WB57Boo73 and it was insured under the OP No.1 since 2011 and the Complainant purchased the said truck for his own livelihood. The truck of the Complainant met an accident on 23.02.17 at 5.30 P.M. at Bagdanga and it was repaired at Tultul Body Builders at Chuanpur under Berhampore PS and the matter was informed to the OP No.1. The representative of the OP No.1 investigated the vehicle. Thereafter, the Complainant paid Rs.2,0,7,000/- for repair of his vehicle and claimed the said amount from the OP No.1 but the OP No.1 through a letter dated 24.02.17 disclosed that the premium for the year 2017-18 has not been paid due to insufficient fund though the Complainant issued a cheque on 16.02.17 amounting Rs.31,047/- through his son (Complainant No.2) account and there was sufficient balance in the said account. The cheque was not encashed due to the connectivity problem and not for the reason funds in sufficient. The Complainant is entitled to get the claim amount and there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. The Complainant prayed for a direction upon the OP No. 1 to pay the claimed amount of Rs.2,07,000/- and Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.
The OP No.2 is the Branch Manager, UBI, Jalangi Branch.
The OP No.1 contested the case by filing written version on 31.010.17, contending that the application is not maintainable and the case is barred by law of limitation. It is the case of the OP No.1 that the policy issued in favour of the Complainant was cancelled due to non-encashment of premium of insurance. The OP No.1 investigated the case of the said vehicle and the reason for dishonored for cheque intimated to the Complainant is a mere typographical mistake.
The OP issued the policy in anticipation of encashment of the cheque but ultimately cancel the policy as the amount was not realized. The OP No.1 has no deficiency in service. The OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The OP No.2 filed written version on 27.11.17, contending that the Complainant No.2 has sufficient balance in respect of cheque No.079111 dated 16.02.17 and the said cheque never sent to the OP No.2 for encashment and the OP No.1 returned the cheque with reason kindly contract Drawer Drawee Bank due to connectivity problem. There is not deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and no relief is claimed from the OP No.2.
On the basis of the above versions following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
- Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP, as alleged ?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Point no.1
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant No.1 is a consumer as he hired the serviced of the OPs.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submits that the case is not maintainable. The Ld. Advocate for the OP No.2 submits that the Complainant has not claimed any relief against the OP No.2.
On perusal of materials on record and on a careful consideration over the submission of both sides, we find that the Complainant hired the services of the OPs and so the Complainant No.1 is a consumer in terms of the CP Act, 1986.
Point No.2
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and the claimed amount is also within pecuniary limit of the District Forum.
On a careful consideration over the materials on record, we find that the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Both the points are thus disposed of.
Point Nos. 3&4
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the Complainant handed over a cheque to the OP No.1 amounting Rs.31,047/- for policy premium in the period from 18.02.17 to 17.02.18.
It is urged that the OP No.1 issued the policy and ultimately the policy was cancelled by the OP No.1 by issuing a letter dated 24.02.17. He further argues that the Complainant was not liable for dishonor of the cheque dated 16.02.17 and the OP No.1 has not even intimated the Complainant to pay the amount immediately after detection of the fact that the cheque had been dishonored.
It is contended that the OP No.1 has deficiency in service and the OP No.1 is liable for loss of the Complainant to the effect of Rs.2,07,000/-. He prays for a direction upon the OP No.1 to pay Rs.2,07,000/- and a compensation of Rs.30,000/- for mental agony and harassment.
In reply, the Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 submits that the OP No.1 cannot be held liable but pay the cost of repair of the vehicle as there was no valid policy on the date of the alleged accident.
It is contended that the policy in favour of the Complainant No.1 was issued in anticipation of realisation of the cheque but ultimately the policy was cancelled due to dishonored of the cheque deposited by the Complainant.
It is contended that the OP No.1 has intimated the Complainant vide letter dated 24.02.17 as to dishonored of cheque and cancellation of his policy. It is urged that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. He prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
The Ld. Advocate for the OP No.2 submits that the cheque being No.079111 dated 16.02.17 issued by the Complainant No.2 was drawn on United Bank of India but the cheque has not been received by the OP No.2 and it is true that there was sufficient balance in the account of the Complainant No.2 at that time.
It is contended that the Complainant has not claimed any relief against the OP No.2.
Admittedly, the Complainant deposited a cheque with the OP No.1 amounting Rs.31,047/- vide cheque No.079111 dated 16.02.17 amounting Rs.31,047/- drawn on UBI and the cheque was issued by the Complainant No.2.
It appears from the documents filed by the Complainant that the cheque was presented before the Bank of India on 20.02.17 and the same was returned by the Bank on 21.02.17 with reason kindly contract drawyer drawyee Bank. The OP No.1 renewed the policy for the period 28.02.17 to 17.02.18 but ultimately the said policy was cancelled vide letter dated 24.02.17. We find that the OP No.1 came to know the fact of dishonor of cheque on 21.02.17 and the fact was intimated to the Complainant on 24.02.17. The so called accident of the vehicle took place on 23.02.17 if the OP No.1 intimated the fact of dishonor of cheque to the Complainant immediately after getting returned memo from the Bank of India, the Complainant may arrange for payment of premium so as to renew his policy but the Complainant could get no scope to renew his policy on the date of so called accident due to latches on the part of the OP No.1. In case of dishonored of cheque, the Insurance Companies is duty bound to intimate the said fact to the insured so that the insured may arrange for making payment immediately.
In the present case, the OP No.1 has not informed the Complainant about dishonored of cheque immediately after getting returned memo from the Bank. The duty and obligation of the insured also cannot be ignore if the Complainant No.1 was vigil he could contract whether the cheque deposited for premium of his insurance policy was encashed of not? But the Complainant No.1 did not take any trouble to contract whether the premium amount deposited by a cheque was encashed or not?
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we think that the OP No.1 cannot be held liable for payments of Rs.2,07,000/- to the Complainant for repair of his vehicle due to accident on 23.02.17 as there was no valid insurance policy on 23.02.17. But the Complainant No. 1 has suffered due to non-intimation of the fact of dishonored of his cheque immediately after getting returned memo from the bank. If the Complainant knew the fact of dishonored of cheque, he might arrange for payments of premium to the OP No.1 for renewal of his policy. We think that the OP No.1 has deficiency in service as he did not informed the Complainant No.1 about dishonored of his cheque immediately after receipt of returned memo from the Bank of India.
We hold that the OP No.1 may be directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant No.1 for deficiency in service. We find that there is no grievance against the OP No.2 and the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief against the OP No.2.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 15.05.17 and admitted on 22.05.17 . This Forum tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders..
In the result, the Consumer case succeeds.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
ORDERED
that the Complaint Case No. CC/76/2017 be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the OP No.1 without cost and dismissed on contest against the OP No.2 without cost.
The OP No.1 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant as compensation for deficiency in service by sixty days from the date of this order.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President.
Member President.
