Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/42/2005

Smt. Raeswari Chandrasekaran - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC of India - Opp.Party(s)

G.R.Lakshmanan

08 Aug 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   20.12.2004

                                                                        Date of Order :   08.08.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.42/2005

      TUESDAY THIS  8^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017

 

Smt. Rajeswari Chandrasekaran,

No.17, Oliver Road,

Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.                       .. Complainant

 

                                        ..Vs..

 

1. The Branch Manager,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

CBO XXX, No.37/A, Velachery Main Road,

Velachery, Chennai 600 042.

 

2. The Administrative officer,

Life Insurance Corporation of India,

CBO XXX, No.37/A, Velachery Main Road,

Velachery,

Chennai 600 042.                                        .. Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant            :    M/s. G.R.Lakshmanan & another  

Counsel for opposite parties       :    M/s. K.Kumaran.  

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and also to pay Rs.20,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

 1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that he is a policy holder of the opposite parties and received the policy bond and her policy No. is 713822521.   Further the complainant state that she has paid the 1^st premium of Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque  No.461501, dated 28.2.2004 drawn on Bank of Baroda  in favour of LIC of India.   The opposite parties immediately after receipt of the cheque issued a receipt for the same with a policy which has been utilized by the complainant for income tax purpose.   The complainant further state that a letter, dated 12.3.2014  received by complainant from the opposite party on 5.5.2004  stating that the cheque issued by the complainant was returned dishonoured with a reason insufficient fund and the policy bond issued stands cancelled and instructed to issue fresh remittance for Rs.10,000/- towards the premium. 

2.     Further the complainant state that the Chief Manager of the Bank of Baroda by his letter dated 17.5.2004 addressed to the 1^st opposite party has detailed, what went wrong to result in dishonouring of a cheque issued by the complainant.   The Chief Manager’s letter is quoted that “ The captioned cheque presented to us by Corporation Bank, Mylapore, was returned by us on 6.3.2004 by oversight as her instructions for transferring the amount from one account to this account was inadvertently not carried out and requested to re-present the cheque”.    It will now be very clear from the details of the above letter that the complainant is innocent and her instructions have not been carried out, which has resulted in the dishonouring of the cheque.   Further the  complainant state that due to  latch on the part of the bank for non transferring of fund from one account to another inadvertent dishonour of the cheque occurred resulting in cancellation of LIC policy and the information given only on 5.5.2004 which caused great mental agony to the complainant.    As such the act of the opposite parties clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service and mental agony to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

3. The brief averments in the Written Version of  the  opposite parties    are as follows:

        The opposite parties denies the allegations contained in the above complaint  except those that are specifically admitted herein and put to strict proof of the same.   The opposite parties admits that on receipt of the above said cheque has issued premium receipt based upon the usual clause, that this receipt is subject to the realization of the above cheque.  It is true that this opposite party has issued a Registered letter dated 12.3.2004 to the complainant, informed her about the return of the above said cheque for want of sufficient funds and informing about the cancellation of the premium.    The opposite party also state that they have duly informed the complainant above the dishonour of the cheque and the cancellation of the Life Insurance policy No.713822521.  The opposite party denies the allegation that the above said cheque was returned without the knowledge of the complainant.   The opposite parties also state that they have received the letter dated 17.5.2004 from the Chief Manager of the Bank of Baroda informing that they have returned the cheque by oversight as her instructions for transferring the amount from one account to the account of the complainant was inadvertently not carried out and requesting this opposite party to present this cheque on a condition that they will honour the cheque only on the availability of the funds.   Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as her evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties filed and no documents marked on the side of the opposite parties.  

5.     The point for the consideration is:  

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and mental agony with cost of Rs.20,000/- as prayed for ?

6. ON POINT:-

        Heard both sides.  Perused the records.  The learned counsel for the complainant made an endorsement that written arguments may be treated as oral arguments and has not advanced any oral arguments.   But on a careful perusal of the entire records the complainant has not filed any written arguments except  written statement.   The complainant pleaded and contended that she is a policy holder of the opposite parties and received the policy bond  but no policy produced before this forum.   Further the complainant contended that she has paid the 1^st premium amount of Rs.10,000/- by way of cheque  No.461501, dated 28.2.2004 drawn on Bank of Baroda  in favour of LIC of India as per Ex.A1.  The opposite parties immediately after receipt of the cheque issued a receipt for the same with a policy No., which has been utilized by the complainant for income tax purpose.  The complainant further contended that as per  Ex.A2 letter dated 12.3.2014 from the opposite party the cheque issued by the complainant was returned dishonoured with a reason insufficient fund and the policy bond issued stands cancelled and instructed to issue fresh remittance for Rs.10,000/- towards the premium.  The contention of the complainant is that she received Ex.A2 letter only on 5.5.2004.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A2 letter it is apparently  seen that “received on 5.5.2004” mentioned some signature.  It is not known whether the “signature belongs to the complainant or not.  It is also very clear that who has written the date 5.5.20054  and received on is not explained in this case.   But it is very clear from the letter Ex.A2 that it was prepared on 12.3.2004  by the opposite parties.  Further the contention of the complainant is that since Ex.A2 letter received only on 5.5.2004 she was not able to keep the LIC bond.   Further the complainant contended  that the General Manager, Bank of Baroda in his letter Ex.A4 dated 17.5.2004 stated that “captioned cheque presented to us by Corporation Bank, Mylapore was returned by us on 6.3.2004 by oversight as her instructions for transferring the amount  from one account to the account of the complainant was inadvertently not carried out and requested to re-present the cheque.   But it is very unfortunate that the Bank of Baroda is not a party in this case in order to find out the deficiency of service on the part of the bank.  Further it is seen from Ex.A4 that on the date of issuing the cheque by the complainant has not maintained any fund rightly available in the complainant’s account; there was no transfer of amount also taken place.    Further the contention of the complainant is that due to latch on the part of the bank for non transferring of fund to one account to another inadvertent dishonour of the cheque resulting cancellation of LIC policy and the information given only on 5.5.2004 caused great mental agony to the complainant is not acceptable; since the bank is not added as a party and there is no iota of evidence except an endorsement Ex.A2 for receipt of the letter only on 5.5.2004.  On the other hand the complainant issued a cheque after giving direction to transfer the fund from one account to another account without ascertaining the transfer of the amount.

 

7.     The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that on the basis of Ex.A1 Cheque the opposite party issued a receipt and deposited the cheque Ex.A1 for due collection. The complainant without ascertaining the clearance of cheque and without obtaining the LIC bond used the receipt for Income tax purpose; is not entitled to claim any relief much

 

less any compensation in this case.   Further the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that the cheque Ex.A1 issued by the complainant was duly returned dishonoured by the drawee bank i.e. Bank

of Baroda.  The said fact was informed to the complainant as per Ex.A2 letter dated 12.3.2004.  The allegation that Ex.A2 letter was received only on 5.5.2004 is absolutely false.  Further the contention of the complainant is that if such a letter was issued quite early, the complainant would have taken suitable steps for keeping alive the bond is against true fact, because the complainant without disclosing the steps for transfer of fund from one account to another account issued the cheque without fund since the fund was not duly transferred and due to inadvertency of the bank the cheque Ex.A1 was returned dishonoured.  The opposite parties have no other option except to cancel the bond alleged to be issued to the complainant.   Further there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties in this case because on good faith immediately after receipt of the cheque Ex.A1 due receipt with bond was issued.  But the complainant has not properly arranged the fund,  due to which the complainant’s  Ex.A1 cheque was dishonoured  by the bank has nothing to do with the opposite parties.  The complainant also has not taken steps to implead the bank as party in this case.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that  the complainant is not entitled for any relief  in this complaint and the points 1 & 2 are  answered accordingly.

        In the result, this complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

   Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  8^th   day  of  August  2017. 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1 - 28.2.2004          - Copy of cheque No.461501 favouring opposite party for

                              Rs.10,000/- issued by the complainant.

Ex.A2- 12.3.2004  - Copy of letter addressed by the opposite party.

Ex.A3- 6.5.2004    - Copy of reply letter by the opposite party.

Ex.A4- 17.5.2004  - Copy of letter addressed by the Chief Manager, Bank of

                               Baroda to the opposite party.

Ex.A5- 5.6.2004    - Copy of letter addressed by the opposite party to the

                               Complainant.

Ex.A6- 16.7.2004  - Copy of letter addressed by the opposite party to the Chief

                               Manager, Bank of Baroda.

Ex.A7- 21.7.2004  - Copy of letter addressed by the Senior Manager, Bank of

                               Baroda to the opposite party.

 

Ex.A8- 20.8.2004  - Copy of letter addressed by the opposite party to the

                              complainant.

 

Ex.A9- 30.8.2004  - Copy of legal notice issued by the complainant.

 

Ex.A10- 1.10.2004         - Copy of reply by the opposite parties.

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -   .. Nil ..

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.