As per Hon’ble President. Mr. Shekhar Muley.
1. This is a complaint of deficiency in service against the SBI Life Insurance Company.
2. Complainant No.2 is father of the complainant No. 1. The complainant No. 2 purchased a policy for his son (complainant No.1) from OP1, SBI Life Insurance. Its premium was Rs. 40,000/- p.a. and due date of payment was 22nd January of each year. Two premiums were paid for the year 2011 and 2012 by crossed A/c payee cheques to the agent of the OP1. One agent Mr. Raja Qureshi approached the complainants for collecting premium for the year 2013. He duly introduced himself with his ID photo card issued by OP1. After getting satisfied with his credentials, the complainant No.2 gave him a crossed A/c payee cheque bearing No. 045946 dated 22/1/2013 drawn on OP2 bank of Chapru Nagar Br. for Rs. 40,000/- in the name of OP1 with his policy number and signature. It was drawn on OP2. The agent told him he would receive the receipt through courier in 4-5 days. When he did not receive the receipt after some days he inquired and OP2 told him to approach OP1 for the receipt. So he approached OP1 and was surprised to know that the OP1 did not receive the premium. When he told the OP1 that he had already given the cheque to the agent Raja Qureshi, the OP1 said they had no agent of such name and not received the cheque issued by the complainant1. So he immediately approached Chapru Nagar branch of OP2 to know whether the cheque was encashed. He was told it was encashed from Akashwani Square Br. of OP2 in favour of one Manish Kumar, though it was crossed cheque issued in the name of OP1. When he did physical verification of the original cheque at the branch of OP2, it was noticed that the cross line, SBI Life Insurance and policy number written on the cheque were erased and in its place Manish Kumar was written. It is alleged, despite obvious tampering with the cheque, the OP2 allowed it to be encashed without verifying signature of the payee.
3. The complainant No.1 then immediately went to P.S Sitabuldi and lodged complaint against Manish Kumar and cashier of the OP2 who allowed encashment without proper verification. It is alleged, the OP1 provided details of the policy to Raja Qureshi who presented himself as an agent of OP1 and obtained the cheque. It was gross negligence and deficiency in service of both the OPs. Hence, it is prayed to direct OPs to pay him Rs. 40,000/- with 18% interest along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and cost.
4. The OP1 filed its reply and denied having received the cheque for Rs. 40,000/- as mentioned by the complainants. Hence, denied its liability to pay that amount. It was not a party to the alleged transaction of paying the amount by cheque to the so called agent of the OP2. It is admitted that the complainant No.1 was insured by it having annual mode of payment of premium for five years. It received four premiums but did not receive disputed cheque towards premium. Raja Qureshi was not its agent and is not known to it nor Manish Kumar is known to it and was not its agent. It did not disclose any details of the policy to Raja Qureshi nor did ask him to collect the premium from the complainant. It is further stated, grievance is against the OP2, Raja Qureshi and Manish Kumar, who collected the cheque from him and encashed it. It is his allegation that third party made misappropriation to which this OP has no knowledge, hence it is not a necessary party. Denying all other allegations it is submitted to dismiss the complaint.
5. OP2 in its reply stated the complainant No. 1 is not its consumer and has no locus to file the complaint. Further the complainant No.2 is a customer of ICICI Bank, Chhapru Nagar Br, hence this OP is mis joined. The complaint is also said to be bad for non joinder of parties as Raja Qureshi and Manish Kumar have not been joined as parties. It is stated, all allegations made against the OP1 and so called agents. Incidents of giving cheque and misappropriation of the cheque are denied for want of knowledge. It is stated the disputed cheque was issued by the complainants drawn on ICICI Bank, Br Chhapru Nagar for Rs. 40,000/- in the name of Manish Kumar. Manish Kumar approached this OP on 21/1/2013 to present the cheque for encashment. After thorough scrutiny and verifying the signature of the drawer the amount was paid to Manish Kumar. Hence, it is denied there was deficiency in its service or it is liable for the misdeeds of third person. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint.
6. Heard learned counsels for all the parties. Perused documents. We record our findings with reasons as under.
7. During the course of argument the counsel for the complainant submitted that the though the complaint is made against two OPs, prayers are made only against OP1. Hence, he has no demands against OP2. As such, we are to examine the case only against OP1.
8. The copy of disputed cheque is placed on record. We have carefully examined the same. According to the complainant this cheque was drawn in favour of SBI Life Insurance with policy number and it was crossed. However, the cheque reveals that it is not a cross cheque and it was in favour of Manish Kumar. No policy number is written on it. On examining the cheque it is difficult to say with certainty that it was tampered with. We, therefore, asked the learned counsel for the OP2 whether the original cheque could be brought before us for examination. However, he was not able to produce the original cheque.
9. We have to decide the case only on the basis of the xerox copy of the disputed cheque. As said before, the copy of the cheque does not give even a faint indication of tampering. It reveals it was issued in favour of Manish Kumar and there appears no erasing. According to the complainant he had written ¨SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd¨ on the cheque and the same was erased and in its place Manish Kumar was written. But in that case some signs of erasing would have been manifestly visible to the cashier. In xerox copy also some signs of erasing would have been visible. From the copy of the cheque it is very difficult to accept that the cheque was tampered and Manish Kumar´s name was written after erasing the words ¨SBI Life Insurance Co Ltd¨
10. There is one contradiction in his narration of the story of the complainant. It is stated in the complaint that one Raja Qureshi posing himself as an agent of the OP1 had approached him for collecting premium. But in the police complaint he has stated Manish Kumar approached him as an agent of the OP1. There is no mention of Raja Qureshi in police complaint. The complainant could not also establish that either Raja Qureshi or Manish Kumar was agent of the OP1. It is not known what was the outcome of his police complaint. Thus on available documents and rival submissions it is not possible to accept the complaint. Hence, the following order.
ORDER
- The complaint is dismissed.
- No order as to cost.
- Copy of the judgment be given to all the parties, free of cost.
