Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.11.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay the insured amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- ( Rs. Three Lakh only ) along with 18% interest.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 12,05,000/- ( Rs. Twelve lakh Five Thousand only ) as compensation.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 50,000/- ( Fifty Thousand only ) as punitive cost against the L.I.C. who could not intimated in time.
- To direct the opposite parties to pay the insured amount of Rs. 25,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Five Thousand only ) as Litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
It is the case of the complainant that his son late Sumit Kumar was insured on 15.09.2009 with L.I.C. and the first premium of Rs. 7,979/- was paid by insured vide cheque of Union Bank of India. The first premium receipt has been annexed as annexure – 1 and from perusal of which it transpires that the total amount of insurance was Rs. 3,00,000/- and the aforesaid policy bears no. as 516991518. It is further case of the complainant that the aforementioned cheque belonging Union Bank of India and the L.I.C. sent the aforesaid cheque to Central Bank of India for clearance on 17.09.2009 but the aforesaid cheque could not be encashed. The complainant has asserted that the aforesaid insured Sumit Kumar survived upto 24.09.2009 resulting in closure of his account in Union Bank of India on the same day and hence the cheque sent by the L.I.C. to the Central Bank of India could not be encashed due to closure of the account of the late insured of Union Bank of India.
It has been further asserted by the complainant that the aforesaid cheque was sent after the delay of five months on 25.02.2011 by central Bank of India to Union bank of India for clearance which has resulted nonpayment of premium and as such central Bank of India is solely responsible for nonpayment of premium.
It is further case of the complainant that L.I.C. had already issued a Bond paper in token of aforesaid policy vide annexure – 2 and after death of insured had issued a letter vide annexure – 3 stating therein that “Policy Docket against policy no. 515987401 from Branch Office. If docket is not available please confirm, in which stage the docket is misplaced?”
Thereafter vide annexure – 4 the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the L.I.C. on the ground of nonpayment of premium which has resulted as the cheque in question was dishonored by the Bank. After receiving annexure – 4 the complainant has given several representation to authorities of L.I.C. vide annexure – 5, 6 and 7.
It has been further asserted by the complainant that late Sumit Kumar had insurance cover of Rs. 10,45,000/- and Rs. 3,00,000/- which had been paid to the complainant on 15.11.2010 and 27.11.2010 as will appear from annexure – 8 series.
On behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 i.e. Central Bank of India a written statement has been filed, in Para – 2 of the aforesaid written statement the following facts have been asserted, “That a cheque of Rs. 7,979/- drawn on the Union Bank of India, for the purpose of payment of 1st premium by the deceased son of the complainant was presented for the clearance by the opposite party bank within its period of validity but due to death of the son of the complainant the same could not be deposited in his account as the concerned account had already been closed for which the respondent Bank cannot be held responsible, in any way.”
On behalf of L.I.C. ( opposite party no. 3 & 5 ) a written statement has been filed stating therein that, “Life Insurance Corporation of India, Danapur Branch lodged the cheque in question deposited by the policy holder on 15.09.2009 as first premium of the policy no. 516991518 for clearance on 16.09.2009 to the banker Central Bank of India, Danapur.” It has been further asserted by opposite party no. 3 and 5 that, “L.I.C. took cheque dishonored action on 27.02.2010 and informed the policy holder on 03.03.2010 accordingly with registered post. It has been further asserted that as the premium amount could not be realized by L.I.C. hence the policy no. 516991558 was invalid ab – intio because there is no valid contract between policy holder and L.I.C.
-
The learned counsel for the complainant has submitted as the Central Bank of India did not act timely by sending the cheque in question to Union Bank of India in time hence there is deficiency on the part of Central Bank of India. He has further submitted that there is deficiency on the part of other opposite parties also.
On behalf of opposite parties it have been submitted that there is no deficiency at all because the cheque in question was sent for clearance within validity period but it could not be honored as the insured had died on the same day.
We have examined the entire record in the light of aforementioned submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
It appears from the record that the son of the complainant had issued cheque of Rs. 7,979/- in favour of L.I.C. on 15.09.2009. The L.I.C. sent the aforesaid cheque for clearance to Central Bank of India on 16.09.2009. it appears that the aforesaid cheque was sent for clearance by Central Bank of India to Union Bank of India but as the complainant’s son died on 24.09.2009 hence his account was closed due to which the cheque could not be honored.
In our opinion the maximum delay in sending the cheque to Union Bank of India by Central Bank of India is five days which is not too much time hence in our opinion there is no deficiency on the part of any of the opposite parties.
For the discussion made above we find and hold that as there is no deficiency on the part of any opposite parties hence this complaint petition has no substance.
For the discussion made above this complaint stands dismissed for want of merit but without cost.
Member President
