DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 1008 of 2009 Date of Inst: 17.07.2009 Date of Decision:.03.05.2010 1. Sunil Kumar son of Sh.Ram Parshad. 2. Smt.Jaswinder Kaur wife of Sh.Sunil Kumar Both residents of H.No.77-C, Sector 51-A, Chandigarh. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Personnel Department, State Bank of India Building, Sector 17, Chandigarh through its Zonal Manager. 2. State Bank of India, Branch Office, PGI MER, Sector 12, Chandigarh through its Chief Manager. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: None for complainant. Sh.Suresh Goel, Adv. for OPs. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Sunil Kumar and Smt.Jaswinder Kaur have filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lac as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides costs of litigation. 2. In brief, the case of the complainants is that they have a joint account (No.10413640507) with OP-2. The complainants got themselves insured with LIC of India by obtaining two insurance policies No.171651037 and 171651038. The premium was to be paid @ Rs.27,407/- per year. Similarly, the complainants have also got two another life insurance policies No.170483931 and 170818961. The premium was payable @ Rs.6350/- and Rs.6443/- respectively. The complainants gave specific instructions in writing to OP-2 to credit the premium in respect of the policies into the account of LIC of India every year. According to the complainants, OP-2 did not pay the premium to LIC of India which became due in October, 2008 due to which policies lapsed. According the complainants, this fact came to their knowledge only when the cheque presented by complainant No.2 was dishonoured on account of “insufficient funds” despite the fact that the complainants had sufficient funds in their account. It has further been pleaded that OPs have converted the savings bank account in MOD without their consent. According the complainants, the aforesaid acts of omission and commission on the part of OPs amount to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. In the reply filed by OPs, the complainants had given instructions to LIC of India to collect the payment of premium of insurance policy through ECS from their account maintained with OP-2. Thus, OP-2 used to credit the payment of the said policies through Electronic Clearance System (ECS) to LIC of India as and when demand was received from LIC. OP-2 did not receive any demand from LIC of India through ECS for the premium in respect of policy No.170818961 for the year October, 2008. So the premium of the said policy could not be credited to LIC of India. According to OP-2, the fault lies with LIC and there is no deficiency in service on the part of Bank. It has further been pleaded that the complaint filed by the complainant on account of dishonour of the cheque has already been dismissed by the Learned District Forum-1, UT, Chandigarh. In these circumstances, according to OP, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. None appeared on behalf of the complainant at the time of arguments. As the case was already fixed for arguments, therefore, we decided to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date even in the absence of the learned counsel for the complainant. We have heard the learned counsel for the OPs and have perused the record very carefully. 5. The only grouse of the complainants is that because of non-credit of the premium in the account of the LIC of India, the life insurance policies purchased by them lapsed. It amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OPs. 6. No document whatsoever has been placed on record to prove that the insurance policies purchased by the complainants lapsed and the complainants got the same revived after payment of revival fees. 7. On the other hand, the case of the OPs is that premium of policy No.170818961 in the month of October, 2008 could not be credited in the account of LIC as no demand to this effect was received from LIC. It has been pleaded that as per practice, LIC used to make a demand of the premium and the OP-Bank used to debit the amount of premium from the account of complainants and used to credit the said amount in the account of LIC. No demand for the premium was received in the month of October, 2008 regarding the policy No.170818961. So the premium could not be credited in the month of Oct. 2008 in respect of policy No.170818961. In support of this contention, OPs have placed on record the letter issued by LIC of India admitting that there had been failure on its part with regard to demand of premium from Bank. Thus, in these circumstances, it cannot be said that OPs were at fault and there was any deficiency in service on their part. 8. As regards, the dishonour of the cheque and conversion of the savings bank account into MOD is concerned, the said matter already stand decided by the Learned District Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh vide its order dated 23.07.2009. 9. In view of the above findings, the complainants have failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against OPs. Hence, this complaint is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 03.05.2010 Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
C.C.No.1008 of 2009 PRESENT: None. --- Arguments heard on 27.04.2010. The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint is dismissed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 03.05.2010 Member President
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | , | | 
