DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Complaint No. CC/15/6 of 5.1.2015

                                      Decided on:        25.05.2015

Achhra Singh, aged about 89 years, S/o  Late Sh.Mansa Singh, R/o 21-A/2, Rattan Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. LIC of India, Branch-1, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala, through its Manager.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Northern Zonal Office, P.P.Cell, 11^th Floor, Jeevan Bharti, 124, Connaught Circus, New Delhi-110001.

                                                                   …………….Ops

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act.

                                      QUORUM

                                      Sh.D.R.Arora, President

                                      Smt.Neelam Gupta, Member

                                      Smt.Sonia Bansal,Member

Present:

For the complainant:   Sh.Amar Singh, Advocate

For Ops     :                  Sh.Manjit Singh,Advocate           

                                         ORDER

D.R.ARORA, PRESIDENT

1. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased three polices from the ops in the year 2003 and a 4^th policy was purchased on 15.4.2004. As per the terms of the policies a sum of Rs.1528/- is payable half yearly to the policy holder by way of pension and  in the event of the death of the policy holder the purchase price i.e. Rs.33,335/- is payable to the nominees i.e. Smt.Gurinder Kaur and Manjit Kaur , daughters of the policy holder.
2. The Ops started remitting the cheques of Rs.1528/- in respect of each policy regularly since from the date of the purchase. The Ops sent two cheques No.374058 and 374060 dated 7.8.2012 to the complainant and the complainant had deposited the same  in his account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce,Tripuri Town, Patiala on 7.8.2012 but the payee bank ie. State Bank of India rejected the two cheques on account of non-receipt of advice from the Ops. The said cheques were again deposited by the complainant with his bankers on 14.8.2012 but the same were again rejected on 14.8.2012 and 21.9.2012 on the same very ground.
3. Two other cheques No.374059 and 374061 dated 1.8.2012 received by the complainant were deposited with Punjab and Sind Bank, Patiala by  the complainant where he maintained his account but the same were also rejected on the aforesaid ground.
4. The complainant sent the aforesaid four cheques to the Ops under registered letter for issuing fresh cheques as the same had become time barred.The Ops again sent four cheques to the complainant on 26.3.2013 but the same were again rejected in the aforesaid manner. Then the complainant wrote letters dated 7.11.2012, 14.12.2012, 25.4.2014 and 14.8.2014, regarding the rejections of the cheques and he also wrote a letter opposing the ECS facility to the Ops. The Ops had sent 12 cheques  for Rs.1528/-each on 16.7.2014 without disclosing the detail of the policy as also the period of the amount of the cheques. The aforesaid act of the Ops is said to be a deficiency in service as also unfair trade practice because the complainant had not received the amount of the four cheues in the year 2012 and therefore, he is entitled to realize the interest on the four cheques for the period 1.8.2012 to 16.7.2014 and further the amount of interest on the cheques withheld after 1.8.2012 to 16.7.2014.The complainant had received the payment of interest after a lapse of two years, which resulted into a financial loss by the complainant and he also suffered the harassment and the mental agony.Accordingly the complainant has brought this complaint against the Ops under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 ( for short the Act) so as to direct the Ops to pay him the interest for the period of delay in the payment of the amount of the four cheques besides the amount of interest on cheques of other policies which were wrongly withheld after 1.8.2012 and also to pay him the costs of the complaint.
5. On notice, the Ops appeared and filed the written version having raised the preliminary objections, interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable in the present form; that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on account of the non-joinder of the bank of the complainant; that the complainant had no locus sandai/ cause of action to file the complaint and that the complainant has not approached the Forum with clean hands as he has suppressed the true and material facts. As regards the facts of the complaint, the Ops have not denied the complainant being the subscriber of the four policies. It is further averred that cheque No.374058 dated 1.8.2012 was issued in respect of policy No.162423384, which had not been encashed by the bank. If there was any fault, the same occurred on the part of the bank but the complainant has not made his bank a party to the complaint. However, against the said cheque fresh cheque No.158156 dated 1.10.2012 was issued by the Ops and the same was got encashed by the complainant on 15.10.2012.Cheque No.374059 for Rs.1528/- dated 1.2.2013 was got encashed by the complainant on 7.2.2013.Cheque No.374060 dated 1.8.2012 issued in respect of policy No.162423385 was issued but the same had not been encashed. Against the said cheque fresh cheque No.158157 dated 1.10.2012 was issued and the same was got encahsed by the complainant on 15.10.2012.Cheque No.374061 for Rs.1528/- dated 1.2.2013 was issued, which had not been encashed.Against the said cheque a fresh cheque No.380340 dated 1.2.2013 was issued and the same was got encashed by the complainant on 7.2.2013. After receipt of the letters from the complainant, the Ops had issued the cheques promptly without any delay. If there was any fault, the same occurred on the part of the bank of the complainant. The Ops had sent an advice to the Bank in time but the bank officials had taken the action wrongly. There was no deficiency of service on the part of the Ops. After denouncing the other averments of the complaint, going against the Ops, it was prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. In support of his complaint, the complainant produced in evidence Ex.CA, his sworn affidavit alongwith the documents Exs.C1 to C14 and his counsel closed the evidence.
7. On the other hand, on behalf of the Ops, their counsel tendered in evidence Ex.OPA, the sworn affidavit of Ms. Hemlata Sharma, Manager(Legal) and HPF department of the Ops at Chandigarh and closed their evidence.
8. OPs filed the written arguments. We have examined the same, heard the ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the evidence placed on record.
9. It is the case of the complainant that he was issued cheques no.374058 and 374060 dt. 07/08/2012, which were presented by the complainant to his bankers i.e.Oriental Bank of Commerce Branch Tripuri Town, Patiala on 07/08/2012 but the bank rejected the cheques on account of non receipt of the advice from the OP. Said cheques were again deposited with the banker of the complainant on 14/08/2012 and the same were again rejected on 14/8/2012 and 21/9/2012 on the said grounds. The complainant has produced the memo Ex.C-7 dt. 14/8/2012 in respect of cheque no.374060 written by State Bank of India Branch Patiala to the Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce showing the return of the said cheque because of the non receipt of the advice. Similarly the complainant has produced memo Ex.C-8 dt. 21/9/2012 pertaining to cheque no.374060 again written by State Bank of India branch Patiala to the Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce thereby having return the said cheque on account of non receipt of the advice.
10. In this regard, it is the plea taken up by the Ops that in view of cheque no.374058, cheque no.158156 dt. 01/10/2012 was issued and the same was encashed by the complainant on 15/10/2012 and in lieu of cheque no.374060, cheque no.158157 dt. 01/10/2012 was issued and the complainant got the same encashed on 15/10/2012. The complainant has not lead any evidence to rebut the said plea of the OPs by way of producing the statement of account of his account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce. Only on 21/5/2015 counsel for the complainant produced the pass book of account no.1092 maintained by the complainant with Punjab and Sind Bank Guru Nanak Nagar Branch, Patiala and the same contains the entries dt. 15/10/2012 regarding the encashment of Rs.3056/- i.e. the amount of the aforesaid two cheques. In this way, it would appear that complainant intentionally concealed the issuance of fresh cheques no.158156 and 158157 dt. 01/10/2012 and the same to have been deposited in his account no.1092 maintained with Punjab and Sind Bank.
11. The complainant has produced in evidence Ex.C11, the copy of the letter   to  have   been   sent  through  registered  post  to   the    L.I.C., I.P.P. Cell, Jiwan Bharti, New Delhi, thereby having returned cheque No.374058 dated 1.8.2012 for Rs.1528/- with a request to re-validate the same or issue the fresh cheque in lieu thereof. Similarly, he has produced Ex.C12, the copy of the letter sent through speed post on 14.12.2012 having sent the reminder to send fresh cheque in lieu of cheques No.374058 and 374060 dated 1.8.2012 to have been sent back by him through speed post on 7.11.2012. The complainant has not however, produced the evidence having collected a certificate from the Punjab & Sind Bank, Guru Nanak Nagar Branch, Patiala as to in respect of which particular cheques, the amount of Rs.3056/- was credited in his account No.1092 dated 15.10.2012. In the entry dated 15.10.2012 maintained in the pass book of the complainant, there is a reference of the payment having been made through cheques but the particulars of the cheques have not been mentioned. It was for the complainant to have lead the evidence regarding the same.
12. Then, it is the case of the complainant that he was issued cheque no.374059 dt. 01/02/2013 and cheque no. 374060 dt. 01/08/2012 which were deposited with the Punjab and Sind Bank, Patiala but the same were rejected on the aforesaid grounds.
13. In this regard, it is the plea taken up by the OPs that cheque no.374059 was encashed on 07/02/2013 and in respect of cheque no.374061 fresh cheque no.380340 dt. 01/02/2013 was issued and the same was encashed on 07/02/2013. The complainant has not produced any memo to have been received by him from the Punjab and Sind Bank to show that the two cheques were not encashed because of the non receipt of the advice as it happened in the case of two previous cheques. Rather in the pass book in respect of account no.1092 maintained with Punjab and Sind Bank, we have found the entries regarding the deposit of Rs.1528/- made thrice in his account on 07/02/2013 going to corroborate the plea of the OPs. Again the complainant concealed the factum from the Forum that his aforesaid two cheques i.e. 374059 and 374061 were encashed through his account on 07/02/2013. We can suppose that the cheques dt. 01/02/2013 would have been received by the complainant after a gap of 2-3 days and when he presented the same to his bank the same were encashed within the shortest possible time and thus there appears to be no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
14. It was submitted by Sh. Amar Singh, ld. counsel for the complainant that the OPs credited 12 entries for Rs.1528/- each in the account of the complainant maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, the copy of the same being Ex.C-5 and that the said entries pertain to the aforesaid cheques also and therefore, the complainant should be got paid the interest on the delayed payment of the aforesaid four cheques.
15. The submissions made by the ld. counsel for the complainant in this regard are very much hypothetical because whereas, it is the positive plea taken up by the OP that in lieu of cheque no.374058 dt. 07/08/2012, cheque no.374060 dt. 07/08/2012 and no.374061 dt. 01/02/2013, cheques no. 158156 dt. 01/10/2012, cheque no.158157 dt. 01/10/2012 and cheque no.380340 dt. 01/02/2013 respectively were issued and the same were encashed on 15/10/2012, 15/10/2012 and 07/02/2013 respectively and that cheque no.374059 dt.01/02/2013 was encashed on 07/02/2013 which fact has been corroborated by the entries made in the pass book, in respect of account no.1092 of Punjab and Sind Bank of the complainant, the complainant has not lead any evidence that the aforesaid 12 entries showing credit of Rs.1528/- in respect of each entry pertain to the payments made in lieu of aforesaid four cheques. The complainant should have collected the evidence from the OPs so as to show whether any of the aforesaid 12 entries pertains to the payments made in lieu of the aforesaid four cheques, in the absence of which there is no reason to accept the submissions made by the ld. counsel for the complainant. Consequently, we do not find any substance in the complaint and the same is here by dismissed.

Pronounced

Dated: 25/05/2015.

Sonia Bansal                Neelam Gupta              D. R. Arora

Member                        Member                        President