BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 09 of 2021.
Date of Institution : 08.01.2021.
Date of Decision : 14.09.2022.
Neelam Bharti wife of Sh. Mahesh Kumar Bharti, Retired Superintendent Irrigation Department, R/o H.No. 678/11 Lal Kutir, near Peer Mandir, Aggarsain Colony, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Branch Manager, I.C.I.CI. Bank Ltd., Dabwali Road, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
2. Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Chandni Chowk Branch, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
3. Branch Manager, ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company, Sirsa, Tehsil and District Sirsa.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SHRI PADAM SINGH THAKUR…………….PRESIDENT.
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR………………… MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Mahesh Kumar Bharti, husband of complainant in person.
Sh. JBL Garg, Advocate for opposite party no.1.
Opposite parties no.2 & 3 already exparte.
ORDER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred as OPs).
2. In brief, the case of complainant is that complainant had obtained insurance policy namely Smart Kid from op no.3 in the name of her son Mrs. Gurpreet Sharan Bharti for the insured amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, the detail of which is as under:-
Policy No. 10514883 police term : 14 years
Premium amount: Yearly Date of child : 9 years
Name of child : Gurpreet Sharan Bharti,
date of maturity: at the age of 23 years.
It is further averred that premium amount of Rs.9399/- on yearly basis was to be paid to the insurance company and insurance company for the study of child had made payment of some amount in the different years as per policy bond. It is further averred that complainant used to deposit the premium amounts regularly and used to get the benefits from the insurance company. That due to some unavoidable reasons, the complainant could not deposit two installments of premium amount in time for which she was liable to pay the same alongwith interest and in this regard complainant deposited a cheque of his bank i.e. Punjab National, branch Chandni Chowk, Sirsa bearing No. 592695 dated 23.10.2020 of the amount of Rs.19,262/- with op no.3, the receipt of which bearing no. 17335696 R3 dated 26.10.2020 was issued by the insurance company. It is further averred that as per terms of policy bond, the insurance company op no.3 was liable to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant on 28.11.2020 for which she contacted with op no.3 on 29.11.2020 upon which the official of the op no.3 informed her that on 26.10.2020 the cheque in question was sent to op no.1 bank. That thereafter again on 5.12.2020, she again contacted with op no.3 upon which op no.3 stated that her cheque has not been received but an email of the bank has been received in their system that her account is closed and her cheque has been dishonored. That when her husband inquired about the above said cheque and closing of account, then the officials and officers of op no.2 bank after verifying their record disclosed that cheque was not received in their bank. That thereafter husband of complainant contacted with op no.1 bank but the employees of op no.1 did not provide any information about the cheque. It is further averred that on 7.12.2020 again her husband contacted with op no.1 bank upon which the employees of op no.1 bank handed over the original cheque and memo of the bank to him. That by dishonoring the cheque of complainant of PNB bank, the op no.1 has caused effect on her CIBIL and has also lowered her image for which op no.1 bank is responsible. The op no.1 bank had kept the said cheque with it for one and half month without informing the complainant in order to ruin her image and defame her. That if any of the ops who is at fault is liable to make payment of premium amount and is also liable to pay compensation of the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant for unnecessary harassment. Hence, this complaint.
3. On notice, op no.1 appeared and filed written statement raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, locus standi, suppression of true and material facts, estoppal and that as complainant is not consumer of answering op, there has never been any deficiency in service on the part of answering op towards the complainant and no consumer dispute ever arose between the complainant and answering op. On merits, regarding contents of paras no.1 to 7, it is submitted that same do not relate to the answering op, as such require no reply. However, it is submitted that answering op on receipt of the cheque no. 592695 dated 23.10.2020 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Chandni Chowk, Sirsa Branch from its consumer ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. sent the same to the clearance section of the branch for online clearance of the same. However, the said cheque was not cleared by Punjab National Bank, Chandni Chowk, Sirsa Branch due to reason ‘Account Blocked’. It is further submitted that on 7.12.2020, the answering op handed over the cheque and cheque return memo to the complainant. The answering op has not dishonored the cheque issued by complainant, rather the cheque has been dishonored by the banker of the complainant i.e. Punjab National Bank op no.2 and answering op is not responsible for the dishonor of the cheque of complainant. The complainant was/is neither the consumer of answering op nor account holder of answering op and therefore, it was not obligatory upon the answering op to intimate the complainant about dishonoring of her cheque which was actually drawn on Punjab National Bank. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint qua op no.1 made.
4. Despite service of notice, none appeared on behalf of op no.3 and as such op no.3 was proceeded against exparte. Initially, Sh. Hemant Sharma authorized representative of op no.2 appeared on its behalf but no written version on behalf of op no.2 was filed despite availing opportunities and ultimately op no.2 also opted to be proceeded against exparte.
5. In order to prove her complainant, she has tendered her affidavit Ex. CW1/A, policy documents and premium deposit acknowledgment, copy of cheque in question, copy of account ledger inquiry, cheque return memo, copy of adhar card as Annexures C1 to Ex.C8. The complainant also tendered policy document, copy of pass book and RBI instructions as Ex. C9 to Ex.C11 in additional evidence.
6. On the other hand, op no.1 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Vikas Kumar, S.O/ authorized signatory of op no.1 bank as Ex.R1.
7. We have heard Sh. Mahesh Kumar Bharti husband and authorized representative of complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.1 and have perused the case file carefully.
8. Admittedly, the complainant in order to pay an amount of Rs.19,262/- i.e. two installments of premium amount to the op no.3 insurance company for the policy purchased by her for her son Gurpreet Sharat Bharti deposited a cheque bearing no. 592695 dated 23.10.2020 of the amount of Rs.19,262/- of her bank i.e Punjab National Bank op no.2 with op no.3 insurance company. The copy of the said cheque of Punjab National Bank has been placed on file by complainant as Annexure C5. The said cheque was presented by op no.3 insurance company to op no.1 bank and the op no.1 bank sent the cheque to op no.2 i.e. bank of complainant for clearance of the amount. However, the cheque in question was returned by op no.2 bank of the complainant with cheque return memo (Annexure C7) with the remarks that “A/C block” i.e. account blocked. However, from the copy of account ledger inquiry Annexure C6 and copy of pass book of the account of complainant placed on record by complainant as Ex.C10, it is evident that account was not blocked and complainant was doing transactions in her account. The cheque in question was returned by op no.2 bank on 5.12.2020 with the above said remarks of account blocked but however, in the statement of account even on 21.12.2020, the status of the account is shown as Active. The op no.2 bank even made transactions in the account of complainant on 18.12.2020 i.e. deposited interest amount of Rs.135/- in her account and therefore, it is proved on record that at the relevant time i.e. on 5.12.2020 the account of the complainant was operative and was not in blocked condition. The op no.2 bank despite appearance has not bothered to contest the present complaint by filing its written version for the reason best known to it ultimately opted to be proceeded against exparte and therefore, an adverse inference is to be drawn against op no.2 bank. The op no.2 bank therefore has caused deficiency in service towards the complainant and has caused unnecessary harassment to the complainant. However, no liability of remaining ops i.e. op no.1 and 3 towards the complainant is made out as cheque in question returned by op no.2 bank on 5.12.2020 with above said remarks was returned back to the complainant by op no.1 bank on 7.12.2020 i.e. within time and op no.3 which is insurance company and had to receive premium amount from complainant is also not found deficient in service towards the complainant. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and keeping in view the fact that complainant has not proved on record that what loss has been caused to the complainant, the complainant has claimed excessive and exaggerated amount of compensation and in our considered opinion, the complainant is entitled to lump sum compensation amount of Rs.5000/- from op no.2 bank.
9. Keeping in view of our above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint qua opposite party no.2 bank and direct the op no.2 to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation for harassment and litigation expenses to the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the op no.2 bank will be liable to pay interest at the rate of @6% per annum on the above said amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant from the date of this order till actual payment. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced : Member President,
Dated: 14.09.2022. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
