West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/2014/06

1. SMT. TUHINA DAS, - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA, - Opp.Party(s)

28 Aug 2015

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

 

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 6/S/2014.                DATED : 28.08.2015.   

             

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

 

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI  BHATTACHARJEE

                                                              & SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

 

COMPLAINANT                 : SMT.  TUHINA DAS,  

  W/O Sri Ashis Das,

  R/O 2, Patel Road, Pradhan Nagar, 

  P.O. & P.S.– Pradhan Nagar,

  Dist.- Darjeeling.

                                                              

O.Ps.           1.                          : STATE BANK OF INDIA,

  Pradhan Nagar Branch,

  P.O. & P.S.– Pradhan Nagar,

  Dist.- Darjeeling.

 

 

2.                                 : LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF

  INDIA,

  Sevoke Road, Branch 1,

  P.O.- Sevoke Road, P.S.- Siliguri,  

  Dist. – Darjeeling.

                                               

                                                                                                                                                                  

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Prasenjit Roy Sarkar, Advocate.

 

 

J U D G E M E N T

 

Sri Biswanath De, Hon’ble President.

 

The case of the complainant is that the complainant issued an A/C payee cheque by cheque no.501801 dated 07.08.2013 of Rs.7,745/- only in favour of LIC of India for premium of LIC policy.  He got a letter from

 

Contd……P/2

-:2:-

 

 

OP No.2 i.e., Life Insurance Corporation regarding non-encashment of cheque of Rs.7,745/- for “insufficient fund’.  They also intimated that policy had been cancelled.  The said cheque had been returned by the LIC.  The matter was intimated to the OP No.1 i.e., State Bank of India, but the OP No.1 did not pay heed and refused the complainant to take any step.  The complainant sent one letter to OP No.1 requesting him to do needful to regularize the above policy, but the State Bank of India did not take any action.  It is pertinent to note that this complainant faced such problem in the year 2006.  The complainant filed Consumer Case being No.7/S/2006. That case was compromised on the request of the OP No.1.  The complainant withdrew the case in the year 2008.

That due to non-clearance of the above cheque, the complainant became defaulter of payment of LIC premium and suffered loss of life insurance coverage as the policy become non-coverage during this period.

The OP No.2 imposed charges of Rs.147/- due to dishonour of cheque and interest on the premium.  Due to deficiency in service by the OP No.1 that policy became stopped. 

It is further complainant case that this is the second episode when due to negligence and deficiency in service the continuance of policy stated hereinbefore has been suffered.  Hence, this case praying compensation and other relief as laid down in para-15. 

OP No.1 files written version denying inter-alia all the material allegations as raised by the complainant against them.

The OP No.1 states that complainant maintained account, but he did not submit any KYC in order to update her personal details despite publication advertisement through different media.  The OP No.1 states that the complainant is a defaulter in maintaining the said account. OP No.1 states that cheque issued in favour of OP No.2 was given to the OP

 

Contd……P/3

-:3:-

 

 

No.1 and OP No.1 sent the same for collection through clearing but returned for the reason ‘signature differs’ and not for insufficient of fund.  For this reason OP No.1 returned the cheque to OP No.2.  It is also stated by OP No.1 that complainant never visited the OP No.1’s office.  It is also stated by the OP No.1 that the complainant subsequently submitted her KYC relating to her said account to fulfill her obligation.  So, OP No.1 prays for dismissal of the complaint. 

The OP No.2 has filed written version.  OP No.2 admits the complainant as a policy holder bearing no.455154903 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- under Table and Term 149/62/16 with yearly mode of payment.  The complainant issued a cheque to LIC for Rs.7,745/- drawn in favour of State Bank of India, Pradhan Nagar.  But the same cheque was returned by the State Bank of India for insufficient fund in the account of the drawer i.e., the said chque could not be encashed by LIC due to insufficient fund of complainant in SBI.  Accordingly, OP No.2 issued letter to complainant demanding fresh payment with interest for updating the policy.  It is further stated by OP No.2 the cheque of the complainant was dishonoured by State Bank of India due to insufficient fund, which appears from the documents itself.  Accordingly, prays order for discharge.        

To prove the case the complainant and other parties have filed Xerox copies of documents. 

Complainant has filed the following documents :-

1.       Original copy of cheque.

2.       Letter issued from OP No.2 addressed to the complainant.

3.       Letter dated 05.09.2013 addressed to OP No.1 by the complainant.

4.       Postal receipt.

5.       Letter from OP No.1 to the complainant for ATM card.

6.       Letter dated 30.01.2015 to O.P. No.1.

 

Contd……P/4

-:4:-

 

 

7.       Receive copy of KYC.

8.       Copy of Pass Book of the complainant showing the balance at the relevant time. 

OP No.2 has filed the following documents :-

1.       One Xerox copy of the LIC policy.

2.       One Xerox copy of the LIC proposal.

3.       One Xerox copy of the proposal slip.

4.       One Xerox copy of Identity card.

5.       One Xerox copy of Branch certificate.

6.       One Xerox copy of Telecom certificate.

7.       One Xerox copy of CDA policy.

8.       One Xerox copy of Intimation letter.

9.       One Xerox copy of Status report.

10.     One Xerox copy of Endowment slip. 

11.     One Xerox copy of the cheque.   

Complainant has filed evidence-in-chief on oath.

OPs have also filed evidence-in-chief on affidavit.

 

Points for consideration

 

1.       Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1/State Bank of India ?

2.       Is the complainant entitled to get compensation as prayed in ?

 

Decision with reason

 

It is admitted position that the complainant is a policy holder. 

It is also admitted position that the complainant sent the cheque to the LIC for Rs.7,745/- for renewal of policy in question.  The OP No.1 and OP No.2 also admit that the complainant sent her cheque bearing No.501801 dated 07.08.2013 drawn in favour of the OP No.2.  But the

 

Contd……P/5

-:5:-

 

 

said cheque was dishonored by the SBI on ground of ‘insufficient fund’ or ‘signature differs’. 

The complainant adduced evidence wherein she had stated her case made out in the petition.  The OP No.1 also filed affidavit-in-chief stating that cheque was returned for ‘differing signature’. 

In the instant case in our hand, it appears that complainant sent this cheque, OP No.2 received that cheque, but cheque was not encashed by the bank.  It is stated by the complainant that OP W No.1 compromised one case with this complainant, but the document has not been produced before this Forum.  There is document to show that the complainant filed KYC to the SBI.  It appears from the Anexure-7 filed by the complainant that cheque was issued to LIC on 07.08.2013.  The matter of dishonor of cheque was intimated to complainant vide annexure-2 dated 13.08.2013 regarding dishonour of cheque.  Annexure-3 is letter addressed to SBI by Tuhina Das on 05.09.2013.  Annexure-7 is one letter in pad of State Bank of India, regarding account number last three digit 882 of Tuhina Das dated 12.03.2014.  This is that KYC receipt. 

The above incident of dishonour was taken place between 07.08.2013 and 05.09.2013.  KYC i.e., annexure-7 was given on 12.03.2014.  Annexure-6 dated 30.01.2005 is a letter of Tuhina Das addressed to Branch Manager for correction the surname of Tuhina Das instead of Tuhina Das Ghosh.  Accordingly, the annexure-7 itself shows that the document KYC (Know Your Customer) had been submitted before the bank on 12.03.2014.  So, the written version of the OP No.1 which states that KYC was not submitted and the account was not updated for which the cheque was returned.  This document annexure-7 goes against the case of the complainant that the said account was not updated as per Rule of Reserve Bank of India, before the submission of KYC. 

Contd……P/6

-:6:-

 

 

In this case, OP No.2 has prayed for discharge as OP No.2 is not anyway connected with the allegations of the complainant.

So, after giving a close look on the documents submitted by the complainant, and documents submitted by the other OP Nos.1 & 2 and written averments of OP Nos. 1 & 2 and oral evidence on both sides on oath, we are unable to attribute any deficiency of service on the OP No.1 as per the material adduced by the complainant in record and we are also unable to accept the elaborate argument of the complainant attributing deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OP No.1/State Bank of India.

There is no merit in the argument of the complainant, and such unmerited complaint fails.                                                                                                                                           

Hence, it is

                   O R D E R E D

that the Consumer Case No.6/S/2014 is dismissed on contest. 

Let copies of this judgment be given to the parties free of cost.               

 

 

-Member-                    -Member-                            -President-