Haryana

Karnal

594/2012

Subhash Chander S/o Sugan Chand - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shri Ram Life General Insurance Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Amar Nath Souda

16 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.  

                                                          Complaint No.594 of 2012                                                                              

                                                               Date of instt.: 14.12.2012

                                                          Date of decision: 16.02.2016

 

Subhash Chander son of Sh.Sugan Chand resident of house no.1131-B, VPO Arianpura District Karnal.                                       ………..Complainant.

 

                             Versus

1.1.Shri Ram Life Insurance Company Limited Regtd. Office 3-6-478 III Floor Anand Estate, Liberty Road, Opposite Indian Bank Himayat Nagar, Hyderabad.

2.Mr.Parveen Jangra, Manager, Shriram  Life Insurance Corporation Limited SCO No.241, Sector -12, Karnal.

 

3.Jai Bhagwan sonof Shri Devi Singh(Kalram Wale) resident of village Taharpur  Bada, P.O.Lalupura District Karnal.

4.Sidarath resident of House no.233/12,  Model Town, Karnal.

                                                ……… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer

                     Protection Act.

Before          Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.                

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:-       Sh.

                   Sh.Rishi Pal Rana Advocate for the Opposite Party no.3.

                   Sh.Rakesh Shelley Advocate for the Opposite Party no.4.

ORDER:                  

 

                        The complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986,  that he is holder of  insurance policy No. LN131000013869 under Shriram Shri Vidya Plus  and was paying the installments regularly.  On 10.7.2012  when he visited the bank premises to deposit the due installment, he was  told by the Branch Manager that he had not deposited the previous installment and the same was due as the cheque No.803646   for previous installment had bounced and the  amount of installment was paid by the Opposite Party no.4 from his own bank account on 18.3.2011.  In fact, he had paid the amount of installment of Rs.50000/- to Opposite Party no.4 vide receipt No.0676184 dated 10.06.2010.  He never deposited  installment by way of cheque and the said cheque was deposited by the Branch Manager i.e. Opposite Party No.4 from his own account while playing fraud with him as well as bank. The Opposite Party no.4 had mis-appropriated the  amount of installment  knowingly, intentionally and deliberately.  The installment was received by the Opposite Party no.4 and receipt was issued but the amount was not deposited in the  bank. The opposite Parties no.2 to 4 were employees of Opposite party no.1, therefore, the Opposite Party no.1  was liable for their acts and conduct. He approached the Opposite Party no.1  to compensate him for mental agony and pain suffered by him but to no effect. Ultimately, he got served legal notice upon the Opposite parties on 6.8.2012 but the same also did not yield any result.

 

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties no.1 to 3 filed  joint written statement disputing the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no loucs standi to file the present complaint; that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present complaint as the question of fraud is involved and that the complaint is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant had not deposited the due installment. Cheque no. 1666625  dated 10.11.2010  drawn on Axis Bank Limited was issued by Opposite Party no.4 towards  the payment of  installment of the complainant but the same was dishonoured  and intimation of the same was given to the complainant. On enquiry it was found that the Opposite Party no.4 who was posted as Branch Manager at Karnal in the year 2010 received installment of Rs.5000/- from the complainant but instead of depositing the said amount with the Opposite Party no.4, he issued a cheque  out of his own account but the same was returned unpaid with the memo dated 27.11.2010 having remarks “ drawers signature differ”. Therefore, installment of the complainant could not be deposited with the Opposite Party no.4.The complaint against Opposite Party no.4 for  fraud was lodged in Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal. The Opposite Parties no.1 to 3 were not responsible for any illegal act done by the Opposite Party no.4.Thus, there was no deficiency in services on the part of Opposite Parties no.1 to 3.

 

3.                The Opposite Party No.4 filed separate written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has no loucs standi and cause of action to file the present complaint; that the complainant has concealed the material facts from this Forum; that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complainant does not fall within the definition of Consumer and that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexacious  to the knowledge of the complainant.

 

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the Opposite Party no.4 never remained as Branch Manager, rather he was only business manager with the Opposite Party no.1 and Parveen Jangra was posted as SSE and was associated with the Opposite Party no.4 for providing service to the consumers and the complainant deposited the amount of Rs.5000/- on 9.11.2010 after banking hours with Parveen Jangra  who was duty bound to deposit the said amount in the account of Opposite Party  no.4 on the next day but he did not do so intentionally and deliberately, but got signed cheque no.166625 dated 10.11.2011  of Rs.5000/- from Opposite Party  no.4 for clearance of installment amount of the complainant. The Opposite Party  no.4 came to know about the dishonour of the cheque on 16.3.2011. Thereafter, he approached the Opposite Party  no.2 and on enquiry about the fact of payment of the complainant, which he had paid in the month of November, 2010, the Opposite Party no.2 felt apology   and requested  the Opposite Party no.4 that he had forgotten to inform him about the dishonour of the cheque. The Opposite Party no.4  in order to save his service , issued another demand draft of Rs.8864/-  in favour of the Opposite Party no.4   on 17.3.2011 and the same was deposited in the account of Opposite Party  no.1 towards the payment of the complainant but the statement of the policy showed  only Rs.5000/- against the said demand draft. In this way, there was no deficiency in services on the part of Opposite Party no.4. It has further been averred that the Opposite Party no.4 had left job of business Manager on 9.12.20120. The Opposite Party no.1 issued No Dues  Certificate in his favour on  15.12.2010 and as such the Opposite Party no.4 had no concern  with the allegations leveled by the complainant. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.