Haryana

StateCommission

A/1089/2017

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARVEER & OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

VINOD VERMA

07 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.1089 of 2017

                                                 Date of Institution: 07.09.2017

                                                               Date of Decision: 07.07.2022

 

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Behrola, (Mini Secretariat), Palwal through its Branch Manager.

…..Appellant

Versus

1.      Narveer S/o Gyasi Ram, Occupation Advocate, Resident of Village Bichpuri, Tehsil Hathin, Distt. Palwal, Haryana-121102

2.      Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Oriental House A-25/27, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002 through its Manager.

3.      Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office at SCO D/5, First Floor, above OBC Bank, Sector 1, IMT, Manesar, Gurgaon-122001, through its Branch Manager.

4.      Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Kalra Bhawan, Old Sohna Road, Near Ghashiram Petrol Pump, Palwal though its Branch Manager.

…..Respondents

CORAM:    S.P.Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr. Vinod Verma, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Mr. Ramender Chauhan, Advocate  alongwith Ms. Preeti Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.1.

                   Respondent No.2 to 4 already exparte.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.1089 of 2017 has been filed against the order dated 31.07.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Palwal (In short Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.50 of 2017, which was partly allowed.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased medi-claim policy No.215301/48/2016/2450 dated 30.11.2015 from OP No. 2. The policy was valid from 30.11.2015 to 29.11.2016 for four family members including himself and sum assured was of Rs.3,00,000/-. He handed over a cheque No. 552507 dated 15.11.2016 worth Rs.4730/- to OP No. 2 for renewal of the policy, but, no intimation regarding renewal of policy was received. He approached OP No. 2 and came to know that OP No. 3 neither renewed the policy nor returned the cheque to OP No. 2. He sent legal notice to OPs and in reply to the legal notice, OP No.3 stated that OP No. 2 sent the cheque to OP No. 3 on 05.12.2016 i.e. after the expiry of the due date for renewal of policy. OP No. 2 also asked a fresh cheque from complainant.  He submitted cheque No.552510 dated 09.02.2017 of Rs.4730/- for renewal of the policy, but, the policy was again not renewed. Thus there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      In its written version, OP No. 1, 3 & 4 submitted that cheque no. 552507 was issued in favour of OBC Mediclaim Policy instead of M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for renewal of the policy and same was returned back to OP No. 2 with the suggestion to submit fresh cheque in favour of M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thereafter, OP No. 1 never received any cheque from OP No. 2. Hence, OP NO. 2 was negligent and requested to dismiss the complaint of the complainant qua OP No. 1, 3 & 4.

4.      OP No. 2 in its written version stated that OP No. 2 is only a mediator. The OP No. 2 sent the said cheque to OP No. 3 within time. OP no.3 has not sent back the cheque to OP No. 2. The dispute arose between complainant and OP No. 3. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of OP No. 2 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint of the complainant against OP No. 2.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Palwal has partly allowed the complaint vide order dated 31.07.2017, which is as under:-

“There is no doubt that the complainant and his family members would have suffered irreparable loss and that too with no fault of them and purely due to the negligency of opposite party no.2 and after absolving the opposite parties no.1, 3 and 4 directs the opposite party No.2:-

1. To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- for damages, mental agony and harassment due to not rendering sufficient services to the complainant even after receiving the cheque of premium for renewal of policy from the complainant well advance.
2. To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5500/-.

All the above directions are to be complied within 45 days from the receipt of the copy of this order failing which the opposite party no.2 will be further burdened to the tune of Rs.50,000/- as compensation in addition to the above mentioned awarded amount.”

6.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P. No.2-appellant has preferred this appeal.

7.      This argument has been advanced by Sh. Vinod Verma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ramender Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 alonwith Ms. Preeti Chauhan. With their kind assistance the entire record of appeal as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties had also been properly perused and examined.

8.      Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the cheque was issued on 15.11.2016 and was handed over to appellant on  05.12.2016.  It is relevant to point out that the Central Govt. has announced the demonetization policy on 08.11.2016 and the bank were put to extra pressure of changing/collecting Rs.500/- and Rs.1000/- old notes. The cheque was dispatched to the appellant on 05.12.2016 and period was within 30 days  from the date of expiry of the medi-calim policy.  If the cheque would have been issued in faovur of OIC Ltd, the insurance company should have renewed the policy. The reason for non payment of premium was that the cheque was drawn in favour of OBC mediclaim. So the impugned order be set aside and complaint be dismissed.

9.      Learned counsel for the complainant-respondent No.1 argued that on 15.11.2016, the complainant handed over a cheque to the tune of Rs.4730/-  to the Branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce (OP No.2) and he assured that policy in question will be renewed before the date of expiry i.e. 29.11.2016. Neither the policy in question has been renewed by OP No.3 nor cheque has been returned to OP No.2.    On the request of opposite party No.2, again cheque of Rs.4730/- was issued, but, the medi claim policy could not be renewed.

10.    It is admitted case that the OP No.2 received a cheque of Rs.4730/- for renewal of the medi claim policy of the complainant, but, it failed to renew it.  It is also admitted that the cheque has been issued in favour of the wrong insurance company and not in favour of the oriental insurance company. The bank should have collected the cheque after checking the same. Since the complainant paid the premium during the subsistence of the policy in question, therefore, the bank as well as insurance company should have informed the complainant by way of email or phone call to issue fresh cheque immediately before expiry of policy.  The learned District Commission was justified when it partly allowed the claim of the complainant. The learned District Forum had committed no illegality while passing the order dated 31.07.2017.  The appeal is also devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

11.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant-respondent No.1 against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

 

07th  July, 2022       Suresh Chander Kaushik                        S. P. Sood                                                    Member                                                         Judicial Member    

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)