C.F. CASE No. : CC/10/41
COMPLAINANT : Ashok Kumar Biswas
S/o Subal Biswas,
Permanent Address –
Vill. & P.O. Khamar Simulia (Ber),
P.S. Taherpur, Dist. Nadia
Present Address –
Vill Badkulla Kadamtala,
P.O. Badkulla, P.S. Taherpur, Dist. Nadia
OPPOSITE PARTIES/OPs : 1) Samar Chakraborty & Laxmi Mandol
2) Subhas Basu (Branch Manager)
UCO Bank, Badkulla Branch,
Vill & P.O. Badkulla, Dist. Nadia
- Chief Officer, T.K. Kabiraj
- Officer, One Hati Babu,
Zonal Office, UCO Bank, DD 3 & 4,
Sector – 1, Salt-lake City, Kolkata – 64,
- Hansaraj Chowdhuri,
Chief Officer, (Publicity & PR)
UCO Bank, 1 B, Russel Street,
Kolkata – 71.
PRESENT : SHRI KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
: SHRI SHYAMLAL SUKUL MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 30th September, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that he purchased one LIC Policy through UCO Bank, Badkulla Branch bearing No. 425055119 and the premium was deposited through the bank also. Up to 2006 the premium amount of Rs. 5,602/- was duly deposited by the bank which he paid to the OP bank. It is his further case that he deposited the premium amount for the year, 2007 on 26.11.07 being amount of Rs. 5,602/- at this bank and receipt was issued by the bank also in his favour. But on query from the LIC office he learnt that the said premium amount was not deposited at the LIC office. He then contacted with the then Manager of the bank, but to no effect. On 29.01.09 LIC authority intimated him that the DD as alleged to be issued by the OP bank was not deposited before the LIC. He thereafter moved the matter before the Assistant Manager and the Chief Officer of the bank, but to no effect. Thereafter as per direction of LIC he deposited the premium amount for the year 2006 and 2007 in cash along with the late fee of Rs. 1,166/-. As there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank in not depositing the premium amount in due time, so he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated in the petition of complaint.
Written version is filed on behalf of the OPs No. 1 to 5. It is the contention of the OPs that the complainant is a loanee borrower. He took a cash credit loan of Rs. 4,80,000/- from the bank and in connection of that he made a LIC policy to cover the loan limits and his goods. This OP bank issued the DD for Rs. 5,602/- in favour of the LIC, Krishnagar Branch on 29.12.07 and the said DD was duly deposited to that office through UCO bank, Krishnagar Branch. But the LIC did not issue any receipt and probably it lost the DD. On several queries LIC authority did not make any reply to this OP bank regarding the deposit of that DD and finally after receipt of information from the complainant this OP bank issued duplicate draft in favour of the LIC and the same was duly credited against the complainant’s policy. So if any fault occurred that was due to the activity of the LIC and this OP bank has no liability in it. He has no latches as he sent the DD of the complainant in due time. So the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against them.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of the complaint and the written version filed by the OPs along with the annexed documents it is available on record that this complainant, Sri Ashok Kumar Biswas had one loan account with the OP UCO Bank, Badkulla Branch. In connection of his loan he made one LIC policy and he paid the premium through the OP bank. It is admitted by both the parties that the premium amount was Rs. 5,602/- which was paid annually. For the premium of 2007, the complainant deposited Rs. 5,602/- before the OP bank on 26.11.07. It is the specific allegation of the complainant that the said amount was not sent to the LIC office through DD which he learnt from the LIC authority. Thereafter, having no other alternative he paid the premium amount for 2007 and 2008 in cash along with penalty charge of Rs. 1,166/- on 24.04.09. On the other hand it is the specific assertion of the OP bank that after receipt of the money from the complainant the bank prepared a DD of the said amount on 29.12.07 being No. 520018 and deposited the same before the LIC authority. It is his further submission that the said DD may be misplaced from the LIC office. But the LIC authority has categorically stated in a note supplied to the complainant on 29.01.09 that the above DD could not be traced out at his office and it appears that the instrument was not deposited at their counter. But the bank authority has submitted that it released the DD through Krishnagar Branch of UCO Bank. To that extent they sent a letter to that branch asking for information about the fate of the alleged DD at which Krishnagar Branch of UCO Bank vide a letter dtd. 23.01.09 intimated the OP bank that the duplicate DD in lieu of the original No. 520018 dtd. 29.12.07 was issued by the UCO Bank (OP) of a subsequent date and the same was revalidated by him on 29.07.09. Admittedly, this DD was duly received by the LIC authority as the amount was credited to the policy premium of the complainant for the year 2009. From the documents filed by the OP we find that since 29.12.07 till 29.07.09 the OP bank did not take any positive step to intimate the complainant about the fate of the DD. Practically, he remained silent though the complainant moved before him time and again to learn about the fate of the DD. It is the duty of the OP bank to be aware of the fate of the DD which was allegedly deposited by him before the counter of LIC. No document is filed by him in support of his contention that the DD was deposited before the LIC through counter. Besides this he is not the proper authority to deposit the DD at the counter of LIC, rather from the written version we find that DD is to be deposited through UCO Bank, Krishnagar Branch and on that point no document is filed by the OP that Krishnagar Branch of UCO Bank deposited the DD before the LIC authority in time. Rather Krishnagar Branch of UCO Bank intimated the OP regarding deposit of the duplicate DD issued by the OP (UCO Bank, BadKulla) on 29.07.09.
The activity of the OP bank is not at all praiseworthy. Due to his negligence the policy of the complainant was on the verge to be lapsed. So considering this we find that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank as well as negligence also in not keeping information about the fate of the DD. Besides this due to his negligence complainant had to pay later fees amounting to Rs. 1,166/- when he deposited the premium for the year 2007 and 2008 and 24.04.09 in cash before the LIC.
In view of our above discussions and considering the nature of this case our considered view is that the complainant has become able to establish the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank. We do also hold that the complainant is entitled to get the relief in this case. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/10/41 be and the same is decreed on contest against the OPs. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 1,166/- (late fees paid) + Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for the harassment and mental sufferings caused to him along with Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost, i.e., in total Rs. 8,166/-. The OPs are jointly or severally liable to pay the decretal amount of Rs. 8,166/- to the complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing this judgment, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @10% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
