The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Manager, State Bank of India, Soro Branch, Soro, Balasore and O.P No.2 is the Branch Manager, L.I.C, Balasore.

                    2. Factual matrix of the dispute is that the Complainants are the bonafide beneficiaries under the O.Ps since they have regular transaction with O.P No.1 and 2. The Complainants deposited a Demand Draft No.1133-521365, dt.10.03.2006 in favour of L.I.C of  India for Rs.7,286/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Two hundred eighty six) only towards premium under Salary Savings Scheme with O.P No.1 to be deposited in favour of O.P No.2. The said demand draft was sent to the O.P No.2, which was misplaced in their Office, thereby the O.P No.2 vide their letter dt.29.04.2008 requested the Principal of S.S Mahavidyalaya, Anantapur (where the Complainants are the employees) to issue a duplicate demand draft against missed demand draft through O.P No.1  in order to regularise the premium of Complainants for January and February-2006. In addition, the O.P No.2 sent a letter to O.P No.1 on 20.11.2009 requesting to issue a fresh demand draft against said stale D.D. The Principal of said Mahavidyalaya sent a letter to O.P No.1 on 23.11.2009 to issue another D.D against said D.D, but the O.P No.1 did not respond to either of the letters as mentioned earlier. Thus, the Principal of said College sent a letter to Insurance Ombudsman on 23.02.2012 regarding missing D.D, there by the O.P No.2 vide their letter dt.17.02.2014 intimated the Principal that they have taken up the matter with O.P No.1 to resolve the issue with a further request to the Principal to assist O.P No.1 to obtain another D.D. Accordingly, the Complainants along with the Principal constantly liaisaning with O.P No.1, lastly on 27.08.2014, the O.P No.1 did not pay any heed to it, thus the Complainants filed this case for necessary relief. The Complainants have prayed for issuance of duplicate D.D along with compensation for mental agony, financial loss and litigation cost.

                   3. Written Version filed by O.P No.1 through his Advocate, where he has denied on the point of maintainability as well as its cause of action. He has also submitted that one Sri Dibakar Parida, but not the Principal of said College is the purchaser of alleged draft. Moreover, the Complainants are also not the purchaser of said draft and this Consumer dispute is also a time  bared, therefore is not maintainable. But, in the present case, neither Dibakar Parida nor the Principal of said College, being the true Consumer has filed this case, so the Complainants have no locusstanding to file the present disputes. As admitted in the complaint petition, the alleged draft was handed over to O.P No.2, thus the O.P No.2 became the holder of the draft. So, the contractual relationship between purchaser of draft and O.P.No.1 ceases and a duplicate draft dt.19.05.2016 for Rs.7,286/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Two hundred eighty six) only favouring O.P.No.2 is issued by O.P No.1 on the request made by the O.P No.2 at a much belated stage. The Advocate for O.P No.1 was absent at the time of hearing of this case and did not participate in hearing.

                   4. Written version filed by the O.P No.2 through his Advocate, where he has denied on the point of maintainability, limitation as well as its cause of action. He has also submitted that the O.P No.2 had requested Principal of said College for issuance of a duplicate draft for Rs.7,286/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Two hundred eighty six) only on 29.04.2008 in lieu of draft dt.10.03.2006, but the present complaint was filed in the year 2014, so the disputes is barred by limitation. Moreover, the matter is subjudiced before the Insurance Ombudsman as per letter No.78/12, dt.23.02.2012 of said Principal, hence not maintainable under law. But, it is a fact that demand draft of Rs.7,286/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Two hundred eighty six) only was deposited with O.P No.2 towards premium amount of Complainants for January and February, 2006 as evident from the letter No.117/2006 of said Principal. Accordingly, the O.P No.2 vide his letter dt.29.04.2008 informed to said Principal for issuance of a duplicate D.D for regularization of premium amount as the alleged draft could not be traced out. The O.P No.2 sent a letter to O.P No.1 with a request to issue a fresh D.D.No.1133-521365, dt.10.03.2006 on 20.11.2009, but the O.P No.2 has no knowledge that the said Principal wrote a letter to O.P No.1 on 23.11.2009 for issue of another D.D against missed D.D, which the O.P No.1 did not respond. After knowing the fact of missing D.D, the O.P No.2 promptly intimated the matter to said Principal for issuance of a duplicate D.D as well as corresponding to O.P No.l and S.B.I, Anantapur Branch, but the Complainants failed to collect and deposit the same with O.P No.2 till date, for which no negligence is attributed in rendering service by O.P No.2. Further, the actual cause of action arose on 10.03.2006, but an imaginary date of cause of action shown as on 27.08.2014. But, O.P No.2 is prepared to regularize the premium after getting duplicate D.D in lieu of the misplaced one.

                    5. In view of the above averments of both the Parties, the points for determinations of this case are as follows:-

(i) Whether this Consumer case is maintainable as per Law ?

(ii) Whether there is any cause of action to file this case ?

(iii) Whether the case of the Complainants is bad & defective for mis-joinder and non-joinder of the Parties ?

(iv) To what relief the Complainants are entitled for ?       

                    6. In order to substantiate their plea, the Complainants have filed certain documents as per list so also by the O.P No.2, but O.P No.1 has not filed any documents in support of his claim. Perused the documents filed. It has been argued on behalf of the Complainants that their premium to O.P No.2 under Salary Savings Scheme amounts to Rs.7,286/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Two Hundred eighty six) only has been sent to O.P No.2 through O.P No.1 in shape of Bank draft, but O.P No.2 informed that the said Demand Draft has been misplaced and requested O.P No.1-Bank to issue a duplicate one. When the matter was not complied with, the Complainants suffered a lot and filed this case praying for issuance of a duplicate D.D along with compensation and litigation cost. The Advocate for O.P No.1 was absent at the time of hearing of this case and did not participate in hearing. However, in their pleading, the Bank thrown responsibility on O.P No.2. According to O.P No.1, the relationship between the Bank and the person, who purchased the draft namely Dibakar Parida has been ceased once the Bank handed over the original draft to that Dibakar Parida. In this case, neither Dibakar Parida nor the Principal of S.S Mahavidyalaya, Anantapur are Parties. The premium amount was deducted from the salary of the Complainants by the Principal and it was deposited by Dibakar Parida. So, as per C.P Act, 1986, the relationship between O.P No.1 and the Complainants doesn't exist. So, Bank has been made Party in this case by the Complainants without any basis and for the reason best known to him. But, the relationship between the Complainants and O.P No.2 exists as per C.P Act, 1986. However, during argument, the Advocate for O.P No.2 submitted that the matter has been regularised and duplicate D.D amounting to Rs.7,286/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Two Hundred eighty six) only has been already received and has been accounted towards premium of the Complainants. He also filed memo and relevant documents in this regard. It has been also argued by the Advocate for O.P No.2 that the actual cause of action was on 10.03.2006, but imaginary cause of action shown as on 27.08.2014 in the pleading of the Complainants.

                    7. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record and in the peculiar circumstances of the case, this Forum come to the conclusion that the Complainants are not the Consumer as per C.P Act, 1986 and this case is not maintainable in this Forum, for which they are not entitled to get relief as prayed for. Thus, it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-

                                                     O R D E R

                         The Consumer case is dismissed on contest against O.Ps No.1 and 2, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost.  

                         Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 21st day of September, 2017 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.