BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PONDICHERRY

                                         C.C.No.11/2011

Dated this the  10^th  day of August 2017

(Date of Institution: 09.02.2011)

K. Srividhyaa, wife of late N.M. Kaarthigheyan      

No.5, Manakula Vinayagar Nagar            

Second Cross, Puducherry – 605 005.      

….     Complainant

vs

1.  Oriental Bank of Commerce                

      No.20, First Floor, Rangapillai Street  

      Puducherry – 605 001 rep. by its    

      Branch Manager            

2. Life Insurance Corporation of India (Vellore Division)

    Kamaraj Salai, New Saram, 

    Puducherry – 605 013 rep. by its

    Branch Manager

                                       ….     Opposite Parties

BEFORE:

          THIRU.A.ASOKAN, B.A., B.L.,

          PRESIDENT 

Thiru V.V. STEEPHEN, B.A., LL.B., 

MEMBER

Tmt.  D. KAVITHA,  B.A., LL.B., 

MEMBER

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:  Thiru L. Swaminathan, Advocate   

FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: For OP1 – Thiru A. Sendhilnarayanan,

Advocate

For OP2 :    Ex parte

O R  D  E  R

(by Thiru A. Asokan, President)

              This is a complaint filed by the complainant u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act for directing the

1. the first opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with 18% interest from the date of death of the husband of the complainant to till date of realisation;
2. to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, pain and sufferings on account of Negligence / Deficiency in Service and
3. to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- being cost of this proceedings. 

2.  The case of the complainant is as follows:

The complainant is the wife of one N.M. Kaarthigheyan who was employed as Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Government of India, Hubli, Karnataka.  While in service, the husband of the complainant had taken a Bima Kiran Policy from the second opposite party under policy No. 731054271 commencing from 28.7.1998 and matures on 28.07.2023 with annual premium of Rs.1,382/- to be paid on 28^th July of every year.  The death benefit for the said policy was Rs.1.00 lakh with Loyalty Addition payable on the death of the Life Assured before the stipulated date of Maturity.  The complainant is the Nominee for the said Policy.  Apart from the above said policy, the husband of complainant had also taken two other policies from the second opposite party under Policy Nos. 730564518 and 710883516 and the premium payable was Rs.501/- and Rs.335/- respectively and the premium to be paid quarterly.  The husband of the complainant had opened a Joint Savings Bank Account along with the complainant with first opposite party bank vide Account No. 08482011000750.  Since the post of said N.M. Kaarthigheyan was a transferable post, to avoid delay in payment of premium amounts to the second opposite party for the above said three policies, he had given a letter in the month of September 2006 to the Branch Manager of OP1 bank  requesting through issuance of standing instructions to the first opposite party bank to deduct the LIC premium amounts for the above three policies from his Savings Bank Account from the month of October 2006 onwards continuously.  Accordingly, the OP1 was deducting the LIC Premium Amounts (Quarterly / Annually) regularly from November 2006 and the amounts were paid to the OP2.  While so, on 27.10.2009 the husband of the complainant met with an accident at Chennai-Trichy National Highway near Pullur X Road and died on the spot.  The complainant stated that she being the nominee of Bima Kiran Policy under Policy No. 731054271, she approached the OP2 with all records and requested to pay the death benefits of her husband under the said policy.  The OP2 paid a sum of Rs.15,202/- only i.e. Basic Amount Rs.14,102/- + Other payments Rs.1,100/- as death claim vide letter dated 21.12.2009.  The complainant enquired with OP2 for non effecting of Death Benefits of Rs.1,00,000/- together with Loyalty Additions, for which the OP2 orally informed that the premium amount of Rs.1,382/- for the year 2009 has not been effected on the due date and hence, the policy got lapsed and as per the policy, the complainant is not entitled for the death benefits along with Loyalty Additions.  On enquiry with the OP1 bank by the complainant, it was noticed that the OP1 bank failed to deduct the premium amount of Rs.1,382/- for the policy No. 731054271 on the due date as per standing instructions given by her husband though there was sufficient amount of Rs.7,439/- as balance as on 06.07.2009.  The complainant further stated that when the first opposite party bank had deducting Rs.501/- and Rs.335/- for the other two LIC polices, nothing prevented the OP1 to deduct the Annual Premium amount of Rs.1,382/- for the Bima Kiran Policy.  It is also stated by the complainant that the second opposite party had also not intimated the complainant's husband while he was alive that the Annual Premium amount has not been paid for the year 2009 for the Bima Kiran Policy.  The complainant's husband met the fateful event of death on 27.10.2009 and the due date for annual premium payable to the Bima Kiran Policy was July 28^th every year and the second opposite party ought to have intimated the husband of the complainant about non-payment of the annual premium amount of Rs.1,382/-.  Thus, there existed clear negligence on the part of the OP2 in not intimating the husband of the complainant about the non-payment of annual premium amount for the year 2009.  Further, there was no written communication from the OP2 regarding the lapse of the Bima Kiran Policy to the husband of the complainant which clearly establish the deficiency of service by the OP2.   The complainant further stated that on account of deliberate failure of the OP1 in not deducting the annual premium amount of Rs.1,382/- for Bima Kiran Policy inspite of sufficient balance in the Savings Bank Account of the husband of the complainant as per the standing instructions and upon negligence / deficiency in servie of the OP2 in not intimating the husband of the complainant well in time either about the non-receipt of the premium or about the laps of Bima Kiran Policy had resulted in untold mental agony, pain and sufferings to the complainant herein for no fault of her.      The complainant sent a legal notice dated 17.09.2010 to the opposite parties which was acknowledged by them, however, the first opposite party had not send any reply and the second opposite party sent a reply stating that they have paid the amount as per norms and was silent to defend the contentions of the legal notice.  Thus, it is clear that on account of negligence / deficiency in service of the opposite parties for which they are liable to pay compensation.  Hence, this complaint.    

3.  Notice was duly served to the opposite parties.  The first opposite party filed reply version and the second  opposite party had not filed any reply version though Thiru S.S. Pajaniradja, Advocate filed vakalat for OP2.  Hence, the OP2 was set ex parte on 9.1.2012.  On 26.08.2014 the OP2 filed a petition to set aside the ex parte order and the same was dismissed  by this Forum on 21.04.2015.  Aggrieved by the same, the OP2 preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble State Commission, Puducherry vide Revision Petition No. 6 / 2015 which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble State Commission, Puducherry on 07.01.2016.  Hence, the OP2 was called absent and set ex parte in this proceedings. 

4. The reply version filed by the first opposite party briefly discloses the following:

While admitting the Joint Savings Bank Account opened by the complainant and her husband with OP1 bank,, this opposite party denied the allegation that in the month of September 2006 the complainant's husband has addressed a letter to the Branch Manager of their bank and requested them to deduct the LIC Premium amount for the  complaint mentioned policies from his Savings Bank Acount continuously from the month of October 2006.  This opposite party stated that no such request was addressed to them as alleged by the complainant in her complaint.  The copy of the letter filed with this complaint is a concocted document created for the purpose of filing this complaint without any date or time.  This opposite party further stated that the complainant's husband is a reputed customer  and used to do regular transactions and well known to the then staffs and Branch Manager of their bank and based on the oral requests made by the husband of the complainant, they have deducted the LIC premium amounts for the particular periods when and then requested by the complainant's husband.  At no point of time, there is any standing instructions given by the complainant's husband.  This opposite party further stated that when the oral request is made by the complainant's husband, the same will be feeded into the Bank's computer which automatically deducts the premium amount from the Savings Account.  Hence, only when there is a specific request to the bank to deduct the premium amount, the bank will heed to the request of the customer and deduct the same as per the request of the customer.  There is no written or oral instructions from the

complainant's husband namely N.M. Kaarthikeyan to deduct the premium amount of Rs.1,382/- for the year 2009 and hence, this opposite party could not deduct the premium amount from the Savings Account.  Therefore, the complainant cannot blame this opposite party for negligence.  Moreover, the complainant's husband died on 27.10.2009 only and he has got pass book entry till 8.9.2009 but never raised any complaint to this opposite party with regard to non-deduction of the premium amount from the account.  This act will clearly show that the complainant's husband has not given any standing instructions to deduct the sum of Rs.1,382/- as LIC Premium amount from his account for the year 2009.  Hence, prayed for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs. 

5. The complainant endorsed no oral evidence.  However, Exs.C1 to C12 were marked on consent.  On the side of first opposite party, RW1 and RW2 were examined.  No document has been marked. 

6.       Points for determination are:

1. Whether the Complainant is the  Consumer?
2. Whether the opposite parties attributed negligence and deficiency in service?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled for?

7.  Point No.1:

          The complainant's husband by name N.M. Kaarthigheyan had taken a Bima Kiran Policy from the Life Insurance Corporation of India under Policy No. 731054271 vide Ex.C1 commencing from 28.07.1998 and matures on 28.07.2023 and was paying premium every year without any default.   Further, the said N.M. Kaarthigheyan had nominated his wife, the complainant herein as a nominee to get the benefits under the said policy in the event of death of her husband N.M. Kaarthigheyan.  The complainant's husband N.M. Kaarthigheyan  met with a road accident on 27.10.2009 and died.  Since the complainant is a nominee to the policy taken by her husband, the complainant is a consumer as against the OP2 u/s 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

8. The complainant's husband opened a Joint Savings Bank Account vide Ex.C4 with the OP1 bank along with his wife the complainant herein as per customer ID 20553707 and A/C No. 08482011000750.  Hence, the complainant is the consumer of OP1 under Section 2 (i) (d) (ii) also u/s 2 (1) (o) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. 

          9. Point No.2:

One late N.M. Kaarthigheyan, a resident of No.5, Manakula Vinayagar Nagar, Second Cross, Puducherry-605 005 while he was alive  had taken three insurance policies from OP2 vide Exs.C1 to C3, one among them is a Bima Kiran Policy under Policy No. 731054271 vide Ex.C1 commencing from 28.07.1998.  The annual premium for the above said police is Rs. 1,382/-.  The said policy matures on 28.07.2023.  Apart from that, the said Bima Kiran Policy, the complainant's husband had also taken two other polices from Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited under Policy Nos. 730564518 and 710883516 and the premium payable was Rs.501/- and Rs.335/- respectively and the stipulated premium had to be paid quarterly.  The said N.M. Kaarthigheyan was prompt in payment of premium.   The said N.M. Kaarthigheyan  opened a Joint Savings Account along with his wife the complainant herein with the OP1 bank vide Ex.C4 under Savings Bank Account No. 08482011000750.  Since, the said N.M. Kaarthigheyan was working as Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), and the said post is a transferable post within India and in order to avoid delay in payment of premium amounts to the OP2, he had given a standing instruction through a letter vide Ex.C5 to the OP1 to deduct the LIC premium amounts from his Savings Bank Account and to pay the same to the OP2 from the month of October 2006.  The first opposite party was also deducting regularly from the month of November 2006 as per Ex.C6 the statement of accounts.  On 27.10.2009, the said N.M. Kaarthigheyan, while proceeding to Madurai from Puducherry in his Opel Coral car and met with an accident and died, due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing regn. No. PY 03 0257 at about 7.30 hours on Chennai-Trichy National Highway, 2 kms South to Pullur village (Near Pullur X Road).  The second opposite party made payment of Rs.15,202/- only towards the death claim against the Bima Kiran Policy (Ex.C1) while the complainant is entitled for full death benefit of Rs.1,00,000/-.  Upon enquiry with the OP2, it was informed to the complainant that the premium for the year 2009 was not paid by OP1 and as per policy terms and conditions, if the premium amount is not paid within the stipulated time, the policy gets lapsed.  Immediately, the complainant approached the OP1 bank and ascertained that the bank has not deducted the premium amount of Rs.1,382/- on the due date for the year 2009, while there is a sufficient balance of Rs.7,439/- as on 6.7.2009.  Having deducted the yearly premium of Rs.1,382/- for the years 2007 and 2008 respectively based on Ex.C5, the failure to deduct the yearly premium for the year 2009 by the OP1 bank caused hardship to the complainant and her family members.  The purpose for which the premium paid is defeated.    Therefore, the complainant issued a legal notice Ex.C9 to the opposite parties.  Though the opposite parties have received the Ex.C9, the OP1 did not respond for the same and the OP2 sent reply vide Ex.C11.   Hence, the complainant has approached this Forum for compensation from the opposite parties for their negligent act of not deducting the premium amount from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant by OP1 and for the deficiency of service for not intimating the complainant about the non-payment of premium for the year 2009 and for the lapse of  Bima Kiran Policy by OP2.

10. The first opposite party resisted the contention by alleging that the husband of the complainant did not give any letter in the month of September 2006 addressed to the Branch Manager of their bank and to deduct the LIC Premium amount for the  complaint mentioned policies from his Savings Bank Account continuously from the month of October 2006.  No such request was addressed to them as alleged by the complainant in her complaint.  The Ex.C5 is a concocted document created for the purpose of filing this complaint without any date or time.  This opposite party further alleged that the complainant's husband is a reputed customer  and used to do regular transactions and well known to the then staffs and Branch Manager of their bank and based on the oral requests made by the husband of the complainant, they have deducted the LIC premium amounts for the particular periods as and when requested by the complainant's husband.  At no point of time, standing instructions was given by the complainant's husband.  Whenever the oral request is made by the complainant's husband, the same will be feeded into the Bank's computer which automatically deducts the premium amount from the Savings Account.  Hence, only when there is a specific request to the bank to deduct the premium amount, the bank will heed to the request of the customer and deduct the same as per the request of the customer.  There is no written or oral instructions from the complainant's husband namely N.M. Kaarthikeyan to deduct the premium amount of Rs.1,382/- for the year 2009 and hence, this opposite party could not deduct the premium amount from the Savings Account.  Therefore, the complainant cannot blame this opposite party for negligence.  Moreover, the complainant's husband died only on 27.10.2009 and he has got pass book entry till 8.9.2009 but never raised any complaint to this opposite party with regard to non-deduction of the premium amount from the account.  This act will clearly show that the complainant's husband has not given any standing instructions to deduct the sum of Rs.1,382/- as LIC Premium amount from his account for the year 2009. 

 11. This Forum carefully perused the materials available on record and the submissions made by the Counsels for the respective parties.  The question that has to be decided in this case is whether the first opposite party was negligent in deducting the premium amount from the Joint Savings Bank Account maintained by the complainant and her husband and the second opposite party was negligent in giving information to the complainant's husband about the non receipt of premium amount from the OP1 bank for the Bima Kiran Policy and about the lapse of policy in time. 

              12. The fact that the husband of the complainant while he was alive took three policies with second opposite party and one among them is a Bima Kiran Policy vide Ex.C3.  Since the husband of the complaint was a Central Government Employee, he happened to work all over India from time to time, and that he was unable to pay the premiums to the above said policies, he had given a letter to the OP1 vide Ex.C5 with a request for deducting the LIC premium for the said policies from his S.B. Account No. 0848201 1000750 from the month of October 2006 onwards continuously. Accordingly, the OP1 was deducting a sum of Rs.501 towards quarterly premium amount for the policy No. 730564518 payable on February, May, August and November every year and Rs.335/- towards quarterly premium amount for the policy No.710883516 payable on March, June, September and December every year and deducted a sum of Rs.1382/- towards annual premium amount for the year 2007 for the policy bearing No. 731054271.  The said amount was debited from his account on 26.07.2007.  The OP1 has also deducted the above said premium amounts for the year 2008 also from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant's husband.  The above said fact is elucidated through Ex.C6 the statement of Accounts.  From the above, it is clear that the bank OP1 bound to pay the premium for the Insurance Policy to the OP2 and it would be debited from the Savings Bank Account of the complainant.  The OP1 bank has paid the premium for two years for the Bima Kiran Policy as per the standard instruction of the Policy Holder.  The husband of the complainant died on 27.10.2009 in a road accident.  On perusal of Ex.C6 statement of accounts, there was no premium amount debited for the Bima Kiran Policy by the OP1 bank from the Savings Bank Account of complainant's husband for the period 2009. 

13. At this juncture, the OP1 bank has submitted that the Ex.C5 letter was not served to their Branch and the same is created for the purpose of this case since the said letter has no date to establish that the husband of the complainant given standing instruction to the OP1 to deduct the premium for the three policies.  The OP1 also stated that based on the oral request made by the complainant's husband, they had deducted the LIC premium amounts for the particular period as and when requested by the complainant's husband.  Further, the first opposite party stated that whenever an oral request is made by the complainant's husband, the same will be feeded into the Bank's Computer which automatically deducts the premium amount from the Savings Bank Account.  From the above facts and as per Ex.C5, it is clear that the complainant's husband has given standing instructions to the bank to deduct the premium amount from his Savings Bank Account and the OP1 has also feeded the same in their Computer and automatically the said premium amounts were deducted from the account of the complainant's husband from the year November 2006 to the year 2009 vide Ex.C6, the bank has deducted a sum of Rs.501/- and Rs.335/- for the other two policies upto 2009 and for the disputed policy upto 2008, however the OP1 failed to deduct the premium amount of Rs.1,382/- from his Savings Bank Account  for the month of July 2009 even though there is sufficient amount in the account. 

14. Further, it is pertinent to peruse the evidence given by the RW1 who is the Branch Manager of OP1 bank.  The RW1 during his cross examination has stated that

       "It is true to say that the bank cannot act based on the oral instructions to deduct the premium amount.  It is true to say that only based upon the standing instructions given by the complainant in writing, the premium amount towards LIC Policies will be deducted". 

            15. The RW2 who was the then Branch Manager of OP1 bank has stated in his cross examination that

        "…. Will not obtain the challan for any credit or debit entry instructed by the customer over phone.  It is true to say that we will obtain the challan system for the customer who instructs to debit and credit the accounts from his account over phone."

It is observed from the evidence that no amount will be deducted from the account holder on oral instruction and even on oral instruction, debit will be done on obtaining challans from the customers.   Hence, the contention raised by the OP1 that the bank will debit the amount on oral instructions as and when required does not hold good. 

            16. Further from the above evidence, this Forum found that the both RW1 and RW2 were not working at the time in the particular branch when the standing instruction was given by the complainant's husband.  The OP1 having been deducting the premium amounts for the three LIC Policies from the year 2006 onwards, the plea taken by the RW1 that the Ex.C5 was not given to the OP1 Bank cannot be taken into consideration.  In the normal course, all the bank will act only on receipt of specific instructions in writing from the customers and make the debits and credits in their customer's accounts.  Hence, without the standing instructions, the OP1 cannot debit the amount for the Insurance Premiums from 2006 from the account of the complainant's husband.  In this case, after receipt of Ex.C5 the OP1 bank has deducted the LIC Policy premium amounts from the account of the complainant's husband from the year October 2006 onwards for all the three policies.  But, for the Bima Kiran Policy, the OP1 bank has failed to deduct the sum of Rs.1,382/- from the account of the complainant's husband for the year July 2009. 

               17. The RW2 has deposed in his chief examination that the complainant's husband died only on 27.10.2009 and he has got the pass book entry updated till 08.09.2009 but never raised any complaint to the OP1 with regard to non deduction of the premium amount from the account for the said Bima Kiran Policy.  It is pertinent to point out here that there is a standing instruction from the year 2006 and it is in existence and the premium was debited for the other policies including the Bima Kiran Policy till 2008.  Even for 2009 the other policies were renewed.  Hence, from the above, this Forum found that the OP1 has omitted to deduct the premium amount of Rs.1,382/- payable to OP2 for the Bima Kiran Policy in July 2009 is probably due to negligence or indifference attitude. 

          18. The other allegation raised by the learned Counsel for the first opposite party is that the authenticity and genuinety of Ex.C5 has to be proved by adducing oral evidence and in the absence of any oral evidence by the complainant, the claim of the complainant cannot be admitted.  In this regard, the learned Counsel relied on a Judgment reported in AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 1441 [VIDHYADHAR vs MANKIKRAO AND ANOTHER] wherein, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that "Where a party to the suit does not appear into the witness box and states his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is not correct."

          19. The learned Counsel also relied on a judgment reported in 1999 STPL (LE) 26093 SC [ISWAR BHAI C. PATEL ALIAS BACHU BHAI PATEL vs HARIHAR BEHERA AND ANOTHER] wherein, it was held that

          "…..Having not entered into the witness box and having not presented himself for cross-examination, an adverse presumption has to be drawn against him on the basis of principles contained in illustration (g) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act".

             Admittedly,  no oral  evidence was adduced by the complainant in this case.  But, it is pertinent to mention here that as per Section 58 of Indian Evidence Act, admitted facts need not be proved.  In the instant case, the RW1 in his cross examination has deposed that  "It is true to say that the bank cannot act based on the oral instructions to deduct the premium amount.  It is true to say that only based upon  the standing instruction given by the complainant in writing the premium amount towards LIC policies will be deducted."  This Forum has already observed that as per Ex.C6 statement of accounts, the premiums were deducted by the OP1 bank by making debit entry in the account of the complainant's husband and hence, it is deemed that Ex.C5 was given to the OP1 by the complainant's husband in the year 2006 itself.  Having debited such amounts from the account of the complainant's husband and it is clearly established through Ex.C6, the allegation that the complainant was not subjected to cross examination cannot be taken into account and the rulings cited above by the learned Counsel is also not applicable to the present case.

             20. The next question that has to be decided in this case is whether the OP2 Insurance company was negligent in bringing to the notice of the non-payment of premium and lapse of the policy either to the OP1 or to the complainant in time.      At this juncture, it is to point out that no reply was filed by OP2 and none was examined on their side.    Further, the OP2 alleged in the reply dated 08.10.2010 vide Ex.C11 for the legal notice dated 17.09.2010 sent by the Counsel for complainant vide Ex.C9 that on the failure of the OP1 alone the policy got lapsed.  It is also pertinent to mention that the OP1 bank was periodically sending the insurance premium for the alleged three policies from the year 2006 onwards and the OP2 insurance company received the same.  As far as complainant is concerned, her husband already paid the premium amount to the OP1 by maintaining sufficient amount in his account.  If the premium was not received for a particular period, the OP2 the insurance company has to inform the same either to the policy holder or to the OP1 bank.    In this case, the premium for the policy has to be paid yearly in the month of July and the policy holder died in the month of October 2009 but the lapse of the policy due to the non-payment of premium for the year 2009 was made known to the complainant who is a nominee of the policy holder only on 21.12.2009 after receiving the death claim from the complainant.  It is the bounden duty of the OP2 the Insurance company to give intimation to the Policy Holder about the non-payment of the premium and the lapse of policy in time.  Hence, this Forum observed that the OP2 was not only negligent in performing their duty but also caused deficiency of service.

                21. It was further observed that the OP1 adhered to the standing instruction from the complainant's husband as early as 2006 and periodically, the premium amounts were deducted from the Savings Account of the complainant's husband for all other policies till 2009 except for the policy Ex.C1 which was defaulted for the year 2009.  The OP1 has debited the policy premiums for the two other policies from the account of the complainant's husband, but the OP1 failed and neglected to deduct the premium amount for Bima Kiran Policy for the year 2009.     The above negligent act of the first Opposite Party has  definitely caused mental agony, loss and sufferings to the complainant.   In this context, it is observed that the OP1 has to compensate the complainant by paying the insured amount due to be payable by the OP2.  The complainant has necessarily to be compensated the insured amount lost by the negligent act of OP1 and it is the OP1 who has to recompense the insured amount to the complainant which is due to be payable by the OP2.  Hence,  this Forum has come to the conclusion that the complainant has clearly established her case and has proved the negligent and deficiency in service of the opposite parties leading to loss and sufferings to the complainant.  Thus, the complainant is entitled for the claim and Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable for their negligent act and deficiency in service.

22. POINT No.3:

            In view of the discussions made supra, this complaint is hereby allowed with the following direction. 

1. The OP1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh to the complainant compensating the insured amount due to be payable by the second Opposite Party, and; 

          2. To pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, pain and sufferings due to negligence and deficiency of service

          3. The OP2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards the deficiency of service to the complainant;

          4. The opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards cost of this proceedings. 

Dated this the 10^th  day of August  2017.

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

   MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

   MEMBER

COMPLAINANTS' WITNESS:  NIL

OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS:  

RW1           02.12.2013           S. Malaravan, Branch Manager OP1 Bank

RW2           07.01.2014           G. Venkatesh, Branch Manager, OP1 Bank,

Villupuram Branch

COMPLAINANT'S SIDE DOCUMENTS:

OPPOSITE PARTY'S EXHIBITS:   NIL

LIST OF MATERIAL OBJECTS:  NIL

1. ASOKAN)

PRESIDENT

(V.V. STEEPHEN)

   MEMBER

(D. KAVITHA)

   MEMBER