Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/187

LAL DHARMENDRA SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC - Opp.Party(s)

SH.LAL GYANENDRA SINGH BAGHEL

20 Feb 2023

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 187 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 13.12.2018 passed in C.C.No.05/2016 by District Commission, Jabalpur-1)

 

LAAL DHARMENDRA SINGH BAGHEL,

S/O LATE SHRI LAAL SATYENDRA SINGH BAGHEL,

R/O 1486, SUBHADRA KUMARI CHOUHAN WARD,

NEAR PREM MANDIR, WRIGHT TOWN,

JABALPUR.                                                                                                                 … APPELLANT.

 

Versus

 

1. MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION

    OF INDIA, DISTRICT HEAD OFFICE,

    B-1, CIVIC CENTRE, MARHATAAL,

    JABALPUR (M.P.)

 

2. MANAGER, AXIS BANK,

    MODEL ROAD, WRIGHT TOWN,

    JABALPUR (M.P.)                                                                                                 … RESPONDENTS.                                

                                 

BEFORE :

            HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR   :  PRESIDENT

           HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA                         :  MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK                         :  MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                Shri Shubham Mishra, appears on behalf of Shri Mukund Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Neelesh Khare, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

           None for the respondent no.2.   

                  

                                                  O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 20.02.2023)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member:

           

                   This appeal by the complainant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘appellant’) is directed against the order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jabalpur-1 (for

 

-2-

short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.05/2016, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint.

2.                Briefly put, facts of the case are that the appellant had obtained insurance policy no.355515321 for sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- from the opposite party no.1/respondent no.1-insurance company (hereinafter referred to as ‘insurance company’). The date of commencement of the policy was 16.03.2010. The premium amount of Rs.8,871/- was to be deposited in 15 annual instalments. The appellant was regularly depositing annual premium as aforesaid through cheques which were being received by the insurance company. However, cheque no. 02275 dated 28.03.2015 drawn on Union Bank of India account no.519302010072336 towards sixth annual premium was dishonored. It is alleged that due to the aforesaid, the policy obtained by the appellant got lapsed. Therefore, alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties, he filed a complaint before the District Commission seeking relief.  

3.                The respondent no.1-insurance company had filed reply and stated that after receiving the cheque from the appellant the same was sent for clearance but the Union Bank of India returned it unpaid mentioning that the “amount/name differed on advice”. Intimation regarding dishonor of cheque was given to the appellant.  The insurance company admitted that the policy obtained by the appellant got lapsed due to aforesaid reason.  It

-3-

is further submitted that if the appellant deposits the due amount up to date with accrued interest along with requisite renewal form, the subject policy can be renewed.

4.                The opposite party no.2/respondent no.2-bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘bank’) in its reply stated that the cheque sent for payment was dishonored because the amount mentioned in the cheque differed from the amount referred in deposit slip.  There has been no deficiency in service on part of the bank.

5.                The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the insurance company to renew the subject policy on payment of due premium amount from March-2015, till date. It is further directed that due premium along with requisite forms for renewal of the policy be deposited by the appellant within 15 days.  The District Commission also directed the insurance company to renew the policy without imposing any penalty or interest in this regard.

6.                Heard.  Perused the record.

7.                Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant had clearly mentioned the amount in words and figures in the cheque sent by him towards premium of the subject policy. He argued that an employee of the insurance company misinterpreted the amount and had written Rs.8872/- in place of Rs.8871/- in deposit slip issued by him. There has

-4-

been negligence on part of the insurance company and further on part of the bank, since the cheque sent by the appellant was dishonored.  The policy obtained by the appellant got lapsed because of no fault committed by him.  The District Commission erred in holding that the appellant could have got the amount corrected in the deposit slip without considering that the deposit slip is prepared by the employee of the insurance company and the appellant could not correct the specifications mentioned in it. He therefore argued that he has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation, which deserves to be allowed.

8.                Learned counsel for the respondent no.1-insurance company argued that the appellant had not clearly mentioned the amount in the cheque issued by him. That created confusion and the employee of the insurance company mentioned specific amount in the deposit slip.  Since the amount mentioned in the deposit slip was different from the amount mentioned in words, the cheque was dishonored, when it was sent for encashment.  The appellant was duly intimated and was asked to issue fresh cheque in order to renew the policy.  The District Commission has adequately compensated the appellant by giving directions to the insurance company to renew the policy without imposing any penalty or interest.  The appellant is not entitled to get any further relief.

 

-5-

9.                We find that the return memo mentioned the reason for return of the cheque as “Amount/Name differed on advice”.  The appellant has alleged that an employee of the insurance company negligently mentioned the amount in the deposit slip, due to which the cheque was dishonored.  We find that the amount mentioned in words is “Eight thousand eight hundred seventy one”, in the cheque.  The employee of the insurance company observed the amount in figures as-“8872”.

10.              On careful examination, we find that certainly the manner in which the amount is mentioned in figures in the said cheque, it creates confusion regarding the last digit.  The appellant ought to have written the amount in figures with clarity.  The amount in figures could be read differently from the amount mentioned in words and it created confusion and therefore the cheque was dishonored due to disparity in the amount specified in different stipulations.

11.              Certainly, the appellant could not get corrected the deposit slip, which was filled by the employee of the insurance company but it was the duty of the appellant to specify the amount lucidly, in order to avoid any confusion. It is apparent that the insurance company had intimated the appellant regarding dishonor of the said cheque and had asked the appellant to issue fresh remittance.

 

-6-

12.              The District Commission after considering the facts of the case has given directions to the insurance company for renewal of the policy on payment of due premium amount without imposing any penalty or interest. Considering the aforesaid, the appellant does not deserve any further relief.

13.              In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned order is affirmed.  

14.              This appeal, being devoid of any merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.

 

(JUSTICE SHANTANU S. KEMKAR) (D.K.SHRIVASTAVA) (DR. MONIKA MALIK)                      

                  PRESIDENT                                MEMBER                MEMBER