29.03.2016

MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, HON’BLE MEMBER.

Instant Appeal u/s 15 of the C P Act,1986 has been preferred by the Appellant/OP 1 challenging the judgment and order dated 11/12/2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Paraganas in C C Case Number 488 of 2013 allowing the Appeal with the direction as under.

“That the case being C. C. no 488 of 2013be and the same is decreed exparte against O.P.-2 and on contest against O.P.-1 with cost of Rs. 20,000/-payable by O.P.-1 to the complainant.

The O.Ps are directed to refund the entire money i.e.Rs.49,879.00 which was deposited as S.B Account to O.P-1 with an interest of 18% p.a within 15 days from this day.

 Both the O.Ps are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/-as compensation jointly and severally within 15 days from this day, failing which, the entire amount will carry an interest of 10% p.a from the date of default till realization.”

The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Respondents 1 and 2/Complainants, being the husband and wife in relation, and the joint holders of the S B Account number 034010100471480, being maintained with the Appellant/OP 1 Bank found from the entry dated 13/03/13 recorded in their aforesaid joint Account that an amount of Rs.49,879/-was allegedly debited from their said Account in connection with one New Investment, being an insurance policy of the Respondent 3 / OP 2 opened in the name of the Respondent 1/Complainant 1.

Subsequently, in dire necessity of fund in connection with their daughter’s marriage, the Respondents 1 and 2 / Complainants decided not to continue the policy and communicated to the Appellant/OP 1 requesting him to take action for refunding the aforesaid amount.

The Respondents 1 and 2/Complainants, allegedly, under the influence of the Appellant/OP 1 returned the policy in original to Respondent 3/OP 2 with a view to getting back the money .Respondent 3/OP 2, who received the original policy endorsing on it, as alleged, “cancelled” and assured the money to be returned. Subsequently, the said Respondent 3 /OP 2, in its communication, expressed its inability to cancel the policy. It also informed that the policy could be effective from 21/03/2013, although the premium amount was deducted, as per recorded entry in the S B Account in question, on 13/03/2013.The “look back” period of the policy was indicated as 15 days with an added astonishing information that the premium amount was Rs. 48,384/- and not Rs. 49,879/-as was shown to have been debited in the aforesaid S B Account.

The aggrieved Respondents 1 and 2/Complainants then filed the complaint case before the Ld. District Forum which the impugned judgement and order relates to.

Heard Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Appellant/OP 1.It was submitted that practically the Appellant/OP 1 has no role to play as the amount was transferred as Insurance Premium under instruction to the Respondent 1 and 2/ Complainants.

It was informed that the Respondent 3/OP 2, being the Insurance Company, has already credited an amount of Rs.1,85,700/-in the said Account of the Respondents 1 and 2/Complainants

The Ld. Advocate continued to submit that the aforesaid amount seems to have been credited to the S B Account of the Respondent 1 and 2 /Complainants in compliance of the judgment and order of the Ld. District Forum in complaint case No. 488 0f 2013.

The absence of the Respondent 1 and 2/Complainants is probably due to the facts that the grievance has already been redressed with the refund of the money in terms of the order of the Ld. District Forum.

The Ld. Advocate prayed for the Appeal to be allowed in the given circumstances.

None represented on behalf of the Respondents 1 and 2/Complainants, nor was there any representation as usual on behalf of the Respondent 3/OP 2.

Perused the papers on record. It appears from the copy of the Nationalized Electronic Fund Transfer Mandate Form that instruction from the Respondent 1/Complainant 1 was there for transfer of fund for the Max Life Insurance Policy (running page 74).

Since the Appellant/OP 1 transferred the fund as per instruction of the Respondent 1/Complainant 1, the Appellant/OP 1 has no deficiency in delivery of service, as alleged. Perused the statement Of S B Account bearing Number 034010100471480 held jointly by the Respondent 1 and 2/complainants wherein an amount of Rs.49,879/- was shown to have been debited.

Perused further that the statement of the said S B Account number 034010100471480 of Respondent 1/Complainant 1 where the names of the joint holders are now recorded as Jiban Ranjan Mallick, being Respondent 2/O.P. 2 and one Samrat Mallick and wherein an amount of Rs.1,85,700/-has been credited by the Respondent 3/OP 2 Insurance Company. The amount, prima-facie, appears to be almost equal to the total amount of the refund, compensation and cost with interest as directed by the Ld. District Forum.

In the given circumstances, we are of considered view that the Appeal be disposed of with modification of the impugned judgment and order as under.

The impugned order is modified to the extent that the amount of refund, cost and compensation to be paid to the Respondents/Complainants along with conditions for such payments, as directed in the impugned order have been fully complied with by the Respondent 3/O.P. 2, Insurance Company and the Appellant/O.P. No. 1 Bank has no liability under the decree.  The appeal is thus disposed of.