West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/42/2012

Minor Surup Saha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sr. Branch Manager, LICI. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Oct 2013

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.42/2012                                                         Date of disposal: 09/10/2013                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr.Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER :  xxxxxxxxxxxx

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattopadhyay.

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. R. N. Sinha. Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr. C. R. Sinha, Mr. T. K. Mandol & Mr. B. K. Raj

                                                                            Advocate.

          

Minor Surup Saha, represented by guardian mother Rupashree Saha W/O-Lt. Susovan Saha, C/o-Sushil Kr. Saha, Mouchak Sweets at P.O.-Belda , Dist-Paschim Medinipur… …………………………………………..…………Complainant.

                                                              Vs.

1. Sr. Branch Manager, LICI, Kharagpur Br., Kharagpur, P.O.-Inda, Dist-Paschim Medinipur
2. Sr. Div. Manager, LICI, P.O.-Nimpura, Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur
3. Br. Manager, Satelite office, Belda, Panchaan Apartment, Belda, Dist-Paschim Medinipur
4. Br. Manager, SBI, Belda Br., Dist-Paschim Medinipur
5. SBI, Rly. Station Br., Kharagpur, Dist-Paschim Medinipur ………Ops.

                

                        The case of the complainant, in short, is that he being a policy holder used to deposit yearly premium Rs.15,044/- (Fifteen thousand forty four ) only to the Op/Insurance Company against the policy no.436572834 with, its maturity  dated 14.03.2031. Last payment is 14/03/2022. Father of the petitioner is proposer to the policy under the scheme “Komal Jeevan Plan” with its premium up to eighteen years merited for enjoying the benefit till 26 years.  If the proposer dies within the premium paying terms e.i. 18 years, the benefit of premium waiver will start immediately from the death of the proposer.  Unfortunately, the proposer, here in this case, died on 29/04/2010.  The proposer before his death paid last premium on 24/03/2010/ at the office of op no.3 at Belda against proper receipt being its no. K. 6751018. But the cheque was returned unpaid despite bank statement shows a credit of Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) only which resulted to the original balance amounting to Rs.16,361.55 as on 24/3/2011.  The L.I.C.I., Belda Branch inform to the petitioner by letter dated 9/4/2010 that the cheque was returned unpaid by their banker’s on the

Contd………………P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

ground of A/C dormant  whereas from the bank statement of Op no.3 the A/C was in a operative condition before or after 24/3/2010.  As a result, the L.I.C.I unfortunately declared lapse of the aforesaid policy resulting deprival of  the getting benefit.  Stating the case petitioner prays for compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- (Nine lakhs) only with direction to the Op to give effect in the premium waiver benefit in terms of the policy and further compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakhs) only with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) only against the Ops.

                       Op Nos.1, 2 & 3 contested the case by filing W/O claiming that the complaint case is not maintainable for want of cause of action and is barred by principle of estoppels waivers and acquiescence.  But they have admitted the statement of bank A/C 11604337937 dated 24/3/2011 that  Smt. R Saha being the guardian mother of minor petitioner deposited Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) only to meet the balance amounting to Rs.16,361.55/- (Sixteen thousand three hundred sixty one & fifty five paisa) only. The Life assured of the policy is the minor petitioner hereof.  As per rules if anybody pays premium through cheque the receipt is valid subject to it’s realization of cheque.  But here in this case the cheque no.341472 for Rs.15,044/- (fifteen thousand forty four ) only issued by the proposer “Susovan Saha” towards the payment of premium due in March 2010.  In this context, the Ops claim in their W/O that since the premium has not been materially paid to them, there was nothing open but to declare default of policy.  For non payment of the premium, the Ops have no liability for giving effect of benefit as per policy.  After death of the proposer, the matter was communicated to the petitioner under their letter dated 25/10/2010 stating the grace period in respect of the policy.

                       Op. no.-5 State Bank of India by filing W/O denied the case in toto except one cheque being its no.341472 dated 24/3/2010 against the A/C no.11604337937 was submitted by the Op. no.3-L.I.C.I. for collection to the S.B.I. clearing house and the same was presented by this Op. no.-5 for collection of their clearing house on 26/3/2010 but unfortunately at the time of its clearance it was found that the said bank A/C runs Dormant at the material time and accordingly the electronic device of the bank did not allow the said cheque.  Finding no other alternative the  cheque was returned un paid by Op no.5-S.B.I..  Moreover, the complainant had no bank account with this Op no.5-S.B.I.  Even he did not hire any banking service with this Op. 5-S.B.I..  So the complainant was not a Consumer of this bank. The proposer maintained his account with Op 3 S.B.I, Belda Branch which was Dormant since 01/3/2010 indicating a deposit of                    Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) only.  The statement of such deposit as on 24/3/2010 might have been overlooked by the said Op. no.3 S.B.I. Belda Branch.  It is evident that the said cheque dated

Contd………………P/3

 

- ( 3 ) -

24/3/2010 issued by the proposer was presented in the bank of Op no.3 S.B.I. on 26/3/2010 through clearing and was returned unpaid on the same date i.e. on 26/3/2010 to the collecting and Bank. Subsequently L.I.C.I of Belda branch returned the cheque to the proposer intimating non-payment

of the said cheque on 9/4/2010.  The policy plan in the name of the petitioner commenced on and from 14/3/2015. Accordingly after due date, the policy might have been lapsed on 14/4/2010.  The proposer, in such circumstances, could have re-deposited the cheque in order to maintain the policy alive.  In this connection, it is stated by the OP no.5 S.B.I. that their machinery system did not allow them to post the cheque giving prohibitory “Do not post, account is Dormant/Inoperative”.  The ground, therefore, has been explained in their W/O.  Thus, according to their rule the clearing house shall in no way be responsible or liable for the claims due to unpaid instrument.  After indication of C.B.S. any cheque presented at home/non-home branch should get paid instantly in respect of S/B A/C holder, but those facilities are not available in case of Dormant or Inoperative accounts.  Here in this case, the account holder was not in contact with the bank for almost one year and as such the case of non-payment was not known to him.  Stating the case, the Op no.5 S.B.I. claims that the complainant has no cause of action and as such the same should be dismissed.

                     Op no.4 S.B.I. Belda Branch challenged the case by filing W/O that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action.  Very specifically stated by this Op no.4 S.B.I. Belda Branch that the S.B.I.A/C being its no.1190005564 exists in the name of father of the minor complainant.

Decisions with Reasons

                       Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that admittedly the proposer paid the yearly premium Rs.15,044/- (Fifteen thousand forty four) only by cheque dated 24/3/2010 against the policy being its no.436572834 against proper receipt. Accordingly the cheque was presented S.B.I., Belda Branch through Axix Bank Ltd. Kharagpur on 26/3/2010 for its clearance.  In this connection, our attention has been drawn by the Ld. Advocate by referring to the Pass Book of S.B.I. A/C being its no.01190005564 in the name of proposer that on 24/3/2010 total balance stands Rs.16,361.55/- ( Sixteen thousand three hundred sixty one & fifty five paisa) only exceeding the amount of premium as stated.

                      Now, question strikes to our mind that despite having sufficient fund why the cheque was not clear.  Ground of such non-clearance of the cheque is that the relevant S/B A/C was technically suffering from the effect of “In operative/Dormant”. In this aspect, the steps taken by the Op/L.I.C.I. attracts no abnormality since they have sent the cheque for its realization immediately upon receipt of the same.  Similarly, Op no.5 S.B.I left no scope for making any adverse note against their service.  Only the incident so far as it relates to the performance of the

Contd………………P/4

 

- ( 4 ) -

Op 4-S.B.I. Belda Branch where from the cheque was returned unpaid despite the relevant S/B A/C in the name of the proposer having sufficient balance.  In this context, it is relevant to note that the S/B Pass Book maintained in their Branch shows “24/3/2010-R. Saha- Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand)

only- Rs.16,361.55/- (Sixteen thousand three hundred sixty one & fifty five paisa) only” factually expressing that R. Saha the proposer has deposited Rs.15,000/- (Fifteen thousand) only which accumulated the balance Rs.16,361.55/- (Sixteen thousand three hundred sixty one & fifty five paisa) only.  This aspect invites no valid reason to discard the glittering picture appearing in the pass-book.  Only question reasonably comes up that as to why the proposer will suffer the effect of his unpaid cheque in spite of having sufficient balance in his account verily maintained in the S.B.I. Belda Branch being Op. no.4. S/B A/C may be declared “Inoperative/Dormant” if it is not maintained by virtue of transaction continuously for two years.  Here in this case, the proposer being account holder made a transaction on 24/3/2010 and the cheque dated 24/3/2010 was placed on 26/3/2010 in S.B.I. Kharagpur Railway station Branch.  The fact is supported by Op no.4 S.B.I. Belda Branch in there letter being its no.BM/33/476 dated 7/1/2011 that the cheque was presented through clearing for payment which was returned on 26/3/2010 as “A/C is Dormant.”  It is also noted in the said letter that there was a balance of Rs.16,361.55/- (Sixteen thousand three hundred sixty one & fifty five paisa) only in the said account on the date of returning the cheque.  In accordance with the banking manuals followed by the S.B.I. that “the customer should not be inconvenienced in any way just because his account has been rendered Inoperative/Dormant.” Vide R.9.2 of Master Circulator.  Further, “Transactions” include both debit as well as credit.  Admitted fact is that there was a valid transaction in the mode of credit–transaction.  If that be so, what prompts the Op-4 S.B.I. Belda Branch to stop the payment.  There is no convincing ground in support of the alleged fact of endorsement of “A/C is Dormant”.

                       Considering the entire aspect of the case it is evident that the petitioner suffered lapse of policy in terms of the policy agreement only due to irregular service of the Op-4 S.B.I. Belda Branch in contravention of the Master Circular being no.NBG/PBU/LIMA-SB/17/2010-11” dated August 2010 which as a whole encourages us to hold and decide that the Op 4 S.B.I. Belda Branch is liable guilty of in deficience in service.

                        Upon the decision above it is a good and bonafide case of the petitioner which should succeed against the Op-4 S.B.I. Belda Branch and there is no case of deficience in service against the rest Ops.

                        As to the quantum of compensation, it may be justified and adequate if we consider Rs.2,00,000/-(Two lakh) only for payment in favour of the complainant enabling her to meet the liability for revival of the policy, pain and harassment etc.

  Contd………………P/5

 

- ( 5 ) -                  

                         Hence,

                                    It is

                                          Ordered

                                                           that the case be and the same is allowed on context with cost

against the Op-4 S.B.I. Belda Branch.

                          The petitioner to get compensation to the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two lakhs) only and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Five thousand) only against the Op-4 S.B.I. Belda Branch.

                          Op-4, the Branch Manager SBI Belda is hereby directed to make payment of Rs.2,00,000/- for compensation and Rs.5,000/- for litigation costs w.e.f. the date of filing of the petition of complaint within 60 days from this day, in default, the complainant is entitled to get 9% interest thereon till the payment.

                            Op-1, LICI is directed to revive the policy no.436572834 upon fulfillment of necessary formalities including payment in this behalf to be made by the complainant.  

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                                     Member                                                        President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                         Paschim Medinipur.