| Final Order / Judgement | Before, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna Appeal No. 90 of 2018 Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Branch Aurangabad, M.G. Road, P.S.- Town, District- Aurangabad, Bihar ............... Appellant Versus - Kameshwari Prasad Singh, Son of Lt. Mukhlal Singh, House No. 48, Mohalla- Sri Krishna Nagar, P.S- Town, District- Aurangabad, Bihar
- Senior Vice President, HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Pushpanjali Place, 1st Floor, Shop No. F1 to F10, Boring Road, Patna- 800013
........... Respondents Counsel for the Appellant- Mr.DayanandSingh, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents- Mr. Ashok Kumar No. 6 &Mr. Sunil Kumar Dubey, Advocates, Before: Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member) Mr. Raj Kuamr Pandey (Member) Mr. Subodh Kumar Srivastava (Judicial Member) Dated: 24.08.2022 Order Mr. Subodh Kumar Srivastava (Judicial Member) - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 15.09.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressed Forum, (herein after mentioned as District Forum), Aurangabad in complaint case no. 39 of 2014 whereby and whereunder learned District Forum has held the appellant /O.P.no. 2 deficient in service and has directed to pay insurance amount of all three policies availed to the complainant along with 10% interest per annum. Further, compensation of Rs. 25,000/- has also been ordered to be paid. These orders were to be complied within three months from the date of order failing which the opposite parties would have to pay interest @12% per annum.
- The brief facts of the case is that one Kameshwar Prasad Singh (respondent/complainant) filed the complaint with allegation that he took three life insurance policies in the name of his three sons namely Kaushalendra Kumar, Manibhushan Kumar & Shanti Bhushan Kumar bearing policy no. 14530318, 14530249 & 14530279 repectively from 08.08.2011 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- each.He paid premiums for the year 2011, 2012 & 2013 through cheques. Complainants has further stated that after payment of premium of the year 2013 on 12.08.2013, he received a message from HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. (respondent no. 2) that premium amount of the said three policies were not deposited properly from 2012. Then, complainant approached the HDFC Bank (appellant) and narrated his grievance to the authorities of the bank. They requested him to issue three other cheques for the aforesaid policies with an assurance that the amount deposited earlier towards the installments of the policies for the year 2013 will be returned. On their assurance he issued three cheques bearing no. 518605, 518606 & 518607 on 18.09.2013 of S.B.I, Parishad Bazar Branch, Aurangabad for Rs. 50,000/- each. According to him as per the instruction of the bank’s authority the cheques were handed over to one Md. Phez of HDFC, Bank Aurangabad, without specifying thereon the name and policy number of the said policy. Complainant was also asked to contact the said person, if he feels any inconvenience, but on contact the said person never responded satisfactorily. Complainant made prayer to refund the excess amount in the complaint petition filed before the District Forum and he also demanded 12% per annum thereon along with compensation for mental and physical agony.
- Appellant has further stated that the installments of three policies Rs. 50,000/- each are have been showndebited in the Bank account of the complainant. Appellant/O.P.-2 being the Banker of the respondent/complainant on receipt of the above cheques for the year 2011 & 2012 dated 04.08.2011 and 01.09.2012 under clearance for collection, debited the account of the respondent and released the same to the beneficiary. Bank owes no liability towards the respondent and respondent/complainant has unnecessary brought this legal proceeding against the appellant. As per the respondent/complainant the said alleged three cheques were pertaining to the SB Account number- 11113392523 of State Bank of India, Aurangabad and were issued by the complainant towards premium of Insurance Policies and has HDFC Bank is neither liable nor responsible for the same. Complainant has concocted the facts to sweep his fault under the rug as the complainant has incorrectly stated that on enquiry of the payment of the insurance premium to the Insurance Company, the HDFC Bank Authority asked the respondent/complainant to issue three other cheques towards the installment amount and that the amount deposited earlier towards the installment of the year 2013 shall be returned shortly and accordingly the complainant issued three cheques bearing no- 518601,518602 and 518603 using his account at SBI dated 18.09.2013 and said chequeswere handed over to one Md. Phez of HDFC Bank, Aurangabad is totally incorrect and false. Further case of the appellant is that HDFC Bank Limited and HDFC Standard Life Com. Ltd are two separate legal business entities and therefore not vicariously liable for each othersact. Hence, HDFC Bank has no concern with the payment of the Insurance premium to the beneficiary. Complainant has not impleaded State Bank of India as party. Complaint filed by the respondent does not fall within the definition of a ‘consumer disputes’ nor any unfair trade practice was adopted ‘nor’ any deficiency in service is established against the appellant/O.P.-Appellant did not receive any premium as alleged by the complainant towards premium for the year 2013. So, the judgment and order passed by the Learned Forum are based on mere surmises and conjectures without appreciating the written statement filed by the appellant, nor taken into the consideration the facts submissions and evidence put forth by the appellant. In view of the above facts and circumstances the order of the learned Forum below is not sustainable in the eye of law.
- Learned counsel on behalf of complainant/respondent submitted that it would be evident from the statement of account supplied by the S.B.I, Aurangabad that amount of last three cheques (518606,518607 & 518608) have been transferred in the account of the appellant which itself falsifies the denial of the appellant. Complainant had discharged his obligation to maintain three policies but appellant has failed to discharge their obligation which is deficiency in service on their part. So, the learned DCF has rightly allowed the complaint petition.
- Respondent no. 2 HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. submitted though its advocate that the company has not received any cheque no. 0014211,001422 dated 29.08.2012 and cheque no. 001423 dated 31.08.2012. Learned counsel further submitted that the company has not received any cheque bearing no. 518601, 518602 & 518603 of State Bank of India account no. 11113392523 of branch Parishad Bazar, Aurangabad for an amount of Rs. 50,000/- each towards the payment of the premium of the policies issued in the name of his sons. Learned counsel further submitted that no act of cheating or unfair trade practice adopted by the company/respondent no. 2 and as such there is no deficiency on their part.
- From perusal of the record and the impugned order we find that learned District Forum, Aurangabad in its order dated 15.09.2017, after giving the case of complainant and defendants and quoting the definition of section 2(d)of Consumer Protection Act, has not given any reason of findings and abruptly allowed the complaint petition in one line. Thus, it is an order without any reason.
- Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case, the Secretary and curator, Victoria Memorial Vs. HowahGantantrikNagrikSameeti&Ors., JT-2010 (2) SC 566 para-31 has held “it is settled legal proposition that not only administrative but also judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reason while disposing of the case. .………”
- : Reason is the heart beat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless……”.
- In view of the above discussion, we find that while deciding the complaint petition the learned District Forum below could not appreciate the evidences produced on behalf of both parties. There is no mention of any evidence in the impugned order. Even it is not clear that the balance statement of the period in question of complainant’s account running in State Bank of India was brought on record before the District Forum and the same was marked as Exhibit. As such, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law and accordingly, the same is hereby set aside and the case is remanded back to the District Consumer Forum, (now Commission), Aurangabad to hear the matter afresh and after considering the evidence available on record, and to pass speaking order with reasons for arriving at conclusion in accordance with law. Accordingly, the case is disposed of.
Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member) Raj Kumar Pandey (Member) Subodh Kumar Srivastava (Judicial Member) | |
