JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint submitted that he had one Life Insurance Policy being No.415863947 and the said policy was matured and op no.1 informed that the process of sending the cheque for the maturity amount is under process by its letter dated 11.02.2013 and thereafter by covering letter dated 28.03.2013 sent the said maturity amount of Rs.40,000/- by cheque No.937665 dated 28.03.2013 drawn on HDFC Bank, Sarat Bose Road Branch and complainant deposited the said cheque for Rs.40,000/- on 11.04.2013 with the UBI, College Street Branch in his saving account. 

          Subsequently complainant issued a cheque of Rs.11,839/- being cheque No.613608 on the above bank in favour of the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (NIACL) being the yearly premium amount for the existing Mediclaim Policy being No.51090034120100001271 covering the complainant, his wife and the septuagenarian mother.

          Thereafter he also issued another cheque to NIACL on or about 24.06.2013 and thereafter on utter surprise complainant came to know from the intimation dated 02.07.2013 from the said NIACL that the said cheque for Rs.11,839/- for renewal of the said Mediclaim Policy has been dishonoured and as such the said company refused to renew the said policy and blocked the same on the ground of insufficient fund and intimation of dishonoured cheque dated 02.07.2013 along with a copy of the said policy was sent.

          Immediately after receiving the said NIACL intimation, complainant enquired with the op no.2 and then only for the first time on 04.07.2013 it was came to know that the cheque of Rs.40,000/- issued by the LICI was dishonoured long ago and the said intimation was issued by the HDFC Bank long ago, as it appears on 12.04.2013 on the ground of Jointly Operated A/C- Singly Signed.

          Such deliberate negligence and omissions on the part of the op, especially op no.1 in issuing a cheque without proper mode of signature caused mental pain and agony and harassment and have their laches actually the Mediclaim Policy of the complainant has not been removed and for which complainant lost both the present and future policy of the mediclaim for sum assured of Rs.2,50,000/- and it was deliberate negligence and deficiency on the part of the op.  So complainant is entitled to compensation and for redressal as appeared before this Forum.

          On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that no doubt complainant had a policy and that was matured and it was informed to the complainant by a letter dated 11.12.2013 when maturity dated was 31.03.2013 and LICI wrote to the complainant and asked for NEFT mandate form so that the survival benefit amount of the policy could be credited to the complainant’s bank account directly to avoid unwanted delay in receiving the due claim amount as per RBI guideline and complainant failed or neglected to provide the details of his account in the NEFT mandate form and LICI had no option but to issue cheque of the survival benefit amount of the policy to the complainant to enable settlement of the due claim before the financial year end and the said cheque amounting to Rs.40,000/- dated 28.03.2013 drawn on HDFC Bank, Sarat Bost Road was issued to the complainant and complainant on receipt of the said cheque deposited the same in his bank account at UBI, College Street Branch on 11.04.2013.

          But most interesting fact is that the said cheque was dishonoured on 12.04.2013 and fact remains that the cheque was deposited by the complainant on 11.04.2013 but it was dishonoured on 12.04.2013 and that was reported to the complainant’s bank about dishonour of the cheque, but complainant was silent and it was not reported to the op.  But when complainant reported the matter to the op on 06.09.2013 within 4 days fresh cheque was issued with intimation on 10.09.2013 and complainant encashed it.

          Fact remains as per complainant, he came to know about dishonor cheque on 04.07.2013 but after that complainant did not contact with LICI for payment of Rs.40,000/- but same could have been arranged as earlier date for deposit of premium on 27.07.2013. But the complainant did not make any contact with the LICI nor intimated the LICI about the dishonour of the said cheque and complainant failed to pay within the grace period and if the matter was disclosed to the bank then bank may issue a fresh cheque then and there.

          No doubt due to some fault one signature was not found for which the cheque was dishonoured for which the op expressed their deep sense of sorrow, but otherwise the complaint is false and fabricated and there was no negligence and deficiency on the part of the op.  But practically it is a mere error on the part of the office and for which op already expressed their sorrow to the complainant but with some ulterior motive complainant appeared before this Forum and filed this complaint for which op prayed for dismissal of this case.

                                                     Decision with reasons

          On introspective study of the entire complaint including written version as filed by the both parties, it is clear that complainant no doubt received a matured amount of LICI by a cheque by a covering letter dated 28.03.2013 and complainant deposited the said cheque on 11.04.2013 to his bank account at UBI, College Street Branch, and thereafter complainant never reported to the op that his cheque had been dishonoured. 

          Truth is that the cheque was dishonoured on 12.04.2013 and this fact was reported by the complainant to the op on 06.09.2013 and op forthwith issued a cheque on 09.09.2013 and that has been encashed by the complainant. No doubt the complainant failed to prove for what reason he has reported that matter on 06.09.2013 though the cheque was dishonoured on 12.04.2013.  In this regard there is no explanation that means complainant was not vigilant about the encashment of the said cheque.

          But fact remains that in the said cheque issued by the LICI one signature of their authority was not there for which it was dishonoured.  But it was the duty of complainant forthwith to inform when it was dishonoured on 12.04.2013.  With some ulterior motive, complainant did not report it and fact remains it is the duty of the customer after deposit of the said cheque to observe whether it is encashed or not.  But complainant was found silent from 11.04.2013 to 06.09.2013 and reasons for his silence is not at all explained in the complaint.  Even then op has admitted that there was an error and if the error would be reported to the op forthwith in that case invariably op shall have to issue a fresh cheque forthwith.  But as because it was not reported to the op and it was impossible to the op for keep watch about the encashment of the cheque.

          So, considering that fact it is clear that no doubt there was an error on the part of the op and op has admitted it.  But error cannot be treated as negligence and deficiency on the part of the op generally until and unless complainant is able to prove that the cheque was not signed by two authorities with malafide intention or there was any enimity in between the complainant and op and now the complainant has failed to prove by any means whatsoever.  So in our view it was nothing but an error and error may be caused for various reasons because it is a very big concern.  But after thorough study of the evidence on record and materials, it is also fact that complainant has failed to prove any sort of negligence and deficiency on the part of op by any means and fact remains that complainant utters such a false story about dishonour of his cheque issued to some other parties because such a plea cannot be accepted because it is the duty of the customer to issue a cheque to some other persons after satisfying about his account that in the account some other cheques what he received has already been encashed or not and as per RBI guide line, it is the duty of the customer who deposited the cheque against his bank account in any bank, he shall be alert about the encashment if it is not encashed, it is dishonoured in that case it must be reported forthwith to issuing authority.

          Fact remains that complainant has not stated anywhere that his banker did not report about the fact and truth is that till now this dishonoured cheque is in the custody of the complainant.  Then invariably along with dishonoured cheque list was issued by his banker that has not been submitted and if it would be submitted in that case it shall be cleared that complainant received the dishonoured cheque along with dishonor intimation from his bank in the month of April-2013 but did not handover that cheque to the op.  It is one kind of dishonest practice of the complainant. 

          Fact remains complainant has not appeared with clean hands, complainant has not filed that dishonoured cheque issued by bank and that has been suppressed for mala fide intention and such sort of complaint should be dismissed.  But now considering all the above fact and also the fact of dishonour of cheque due to insufficient signature of the op and subsequent encashment of the same by the op in the month of September, for the period i.e. from 11.04.2013 to 08.09.2013 and op is requested to handover the amount of interest @ 6% p.a. for that period to the complainant when during that period he did not get any benefit of the said amount and when error was on the part of the op.

          Moreover this complaint is disposed of by partly allowing the interest @ 6% p.a. for the period from 11.04.2013 to 08.09.2013 over the said amount of Rs.40,000/- to the complainant and op shall comply it.

          Hence, it is

                                                               ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed in part on contest but without any cost.

          Op is directed to release 6% p.a interest over the said amount of Rs.40,000/- for the period from 11.04.2013 to 08.09.2013 and complainant is directed to supply his bank details for NEFT Mandate Form and finally op shall have to complete this matter within two months from the date of this order.