Date of Filing: 07.01.2014 Date of Final Order: 28.10.2014
The instant complaint could be filed by Rejaul Saikh, S/O Musahaque Mandal U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against the opposite party for issuing a direction upon the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for negligent manner of service with compensation and cost as incorporated in the concluding portion of the complaint.
The brief facts of the case as culled out from the record is that the complainant deposited a cheque bearing No. 012165 of Rs. 7307/- of State Bank of India in connection with his Account No.30574486718 on 26. 08. 2013 to the United India Insurance Company Ltd. at its Cooch Behar branch for renewal of his Family Medicare Policy being No. 031902/48/12/06/00000366. The Complainant received new Policy being No. 031902/48/13/06/00000484 on 27.08.2013 but surprisingly on 04.09.2013 the Agent of United India Insurance Company Ltd., Rajib Paul reported him over phone that the said deposited cheque has been returned back from the State bank of India with a note of Branch Manager “Insufficient Fund” and thus Complainant have to pay the amount in cash. Facing the situation the Complainant bound to deposit the amount in cash with fine to the Insurance Company. There after the Complainant received a letter from the Insurance Company on 11. 09.2013. and came to know that his old and new two policies are cancelled as per rules of the company as the cheque was retuned due to insufficient fund. The Complainant then made contact with the Agent who gave him a new policy deed with validity of one year but many diseases has not covered under the said policy so that the Complainant will be deprive from the facilities of the mediclaim as he intended to. When the Complainant made contact with the B.M of SBI he admitted that he negligently wrote the note. On request of the Complainant the B.M of SBI in the xerox copy of cheque return Memo, wrote in his own hand that “Erroneously Cheque No. 012165 Rs. 7307/- was Returned at our end. There was sufficient balance to honour the cheque” and signed it. The Complainant with the said note contacted with the Insurance Company but to no good. The B. M. of SBI made contact with the official of Insurance Company and asked the Complainant over phone for made a representation to the Insurance Company. Before filing the application the Complainant wanted to know to the Insurance Company that is there any chance to renew the said policy but no affirmative answer, ultimately the Complainant suffered for negligent manner of act of the B.M. of SBI thus, the present case arisen out seeking redress and relief.
In this case the opposite party after appearance filed written version for contesting the case contending inter alia that the present case is not maintainable either in facts as well as in law. The opposite party categorically denied all most the entire allegation against him and averred that this opposite party is a worker of a reputed bank and admitted that the Complainant issued one cheque of SBI of Nishiganj branch to the United India Insurance Company and the same in question came to the SBI, Main Branch, Cooch Behar for clearance through HDFC Bank. The cheque was issued for Rs.73071.00 in figure and Rs. Seven Thousand Three Hundred Seven in words for which it seems confusing and contradictory to the Branch Manager of SBI and at that period the balance in the account of the Complainant was only Rs.7554.70 i.e. more less amount than Rs. 73,071.00. The O.P categorically denied the allegation of the Complainant and contended that due to insufficient balance the O.P. bound to dishonor the said cheque to avoid any misuse of fund. Thus, there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P and the Branch Manager of the said bank acted diligently and as per law. This O.P further contended that the complainant willfully has filed the case without any cause of action and liable to be dismissed. Putting all this, the O.P concluded his version praying for dismissal of the case with cost.
It appears that in this case the complainant made O.P, the Branch Manager, S.B.I., Cooch Behar Branch. The W/V on behalf of the O.P has filed by the Relationship Manager, S.B.I., Cooch Behar Main Branch and evidence on affidavit has filed by the Chief Manager of S.B.I. As all are related with the same branch we accept that version and evidence. The complainant has filed evidence on affidavit with some original documents (Exhibit No.1 to 6).
By filing evidence on affidavit the complainant categorically denied the statement of O.P that in the cheque the amount was written Rs.73,071/- when the O.P in the cheque Return Memo clearly wrote the amount Rs.7,307/- then it is clear that by false statement the O.P tried to motivate the Forum.
The Chief Manager has filed the evidence on affidavit which is nothing but duplicate W/V and no new points came out for consideration.
In the light of the contention of both parties the following moot points came out for consideration to reach a just decision.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant is a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the Opposite Party any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASON
We have gone through the record very carefully, peruse the entire documents in the record, Evidence on affidavit of the both parties and also heard the argument of the agent of the both parties in full.
Point No. 1.
It has been mandated by the provision of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 that the person has filed a complaint before the Forum for the purpose of any relief, has to prove himself a consumer. In the instant case, the complainant admittedly, for the purpose of getting service in connection of his Account No.30574486718 lying with the Opposite Party Bank at Nishiganj Branch. As it is crystal clear that the complainant availed of and bought the service of the opposite party as a valuable customer of the O.P. Bank it can well be derived that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party as per the spirit of the provision of section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Point No. 2.
In the case in hand the O.P bank is situated in this District and the Complaint value of Rs.5,00,000/- i.e. within the limit of Rs. 20,00000/-. Thus, this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
The above two points are taken up together for convenience of discussion.
On perusal the entire documents of the record it appears that the complainant issued a multicity cheque bearing no. 012165 of Rs. 7307/- in favour of United India Insurance Company Limited. As per Complaint, said cheque was issued for payment of premium of the Family Medicare Policy of the Complainant. It is also clear from the Exhibit No 4 that at the material point of time there was 7554.70/- in the account of the Complainant though the O.P Branch Manager, S.B.I. returned the said cheque on 29-08-2013 through Cheque Return Memo with reason “Fund insufficient”.
It is pertinent to mention that when the complainant met with the Branch Manager, S.B.I., at first he denied but when perused the account of the complainant he compelled to write an endorsement that he erroneously returned the cheque in spite of required balance remains in the account of the Complainant.
Surprisingly, the Branch Manager of O.P bank seems the figure Rs.7,307/- as Rs.73,071/- but did not bother the amount has written in figure i.e. Seven thousand three hundred seven. Moreover, in the Cheque Return Memo the said Branch Manager clearly wrote the figure Rs.7,307/-, thus in our view there is clear contradiction in the materials and the version of O.P though in written version this O.P clearly stated that the complainant issued a cheque of Rs.73,071/- in figures and Rs. Seven thousand three hundred seven in words. The O.P. also admitted that at the material point of time there was balance of Rs. 7,554.70 in the account of the Complainant. So, the O.P negligently and whimsically dishonors the cheque of the complainant and as a result the complainant’s policy in question stands cancelled. The Exhibit No.1 shows the same and also the complaint charged with Rs.150/- by United Insurance Company towards bank charges.
The complainant vehemently argued that due to dishonor of cheque in question the social prestige of the complainant turn down and he and his family members deprived from the facilities of Family Medicare Policy.
On the other hand the Ld. Agent for the O.P argued that to notice the matter the Branch Manager of O.P bank extended his hands for co-operation but the complainant did not co-operate.
The complainant alleged for dishonor of the cheque in spite of available balance in his account. This is certainly deficiency in service from the part of the O.P but the complainant claimed Insurance Policy amount as for dishonoring the cheque the policy of the complainant cancelled. It is crystal clear from the record Exhibit No.1 that for nonpayment of premium the Policy No.031902/48/13106/00000484 stands cancelled since inception due to non-encashment of cheque as was issued by the complainant on 26-08-2013. It is already proved that due to negligence of the O.P. Bank the Policy of the Complainant cancelled. The Complainant prayed before this Forum Rs.4,00,000/-, the Policy amount in connection with the Policy No. 031902/48/13/06/00000531 as the Complainant and the other policy holder of his family deprived from the facilities for two years as described in the Exclusion clause No.4.3. It is pertinent point to mention that the policy period was from 05.09.2013 to 04.09.2014 and the Complainant or his any family member/policy holder did not suffer any disease as to avail the benefit of the said policy for which we are not in a position to consider/allow the said prayer of the Complainant. In the present case the Complainant did not made party, to The United Insurance Company for which this Forum unable to give any order to the Insurance Company also. On perusal the record it also appears that validity of the Policy of the Complainant is over and no question arises for revalidation of the said Policy. It is also pertinent point to mention that the Insurance Company also issued a new Policy with same terms and condition in favour of the Complainant with his family members. Considering the situation of the Complainant and for the deficiency of service of the O.P. Bank this Forum is in the considered opinion to allow the Complaint but in part.
ORDER
Hence it is Ordered,
That the Complaint be and the same is allowed on contest but in part. The Opposite Party is hereby directed to pay the Complainant Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment with litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- also Rs. 150/- as Bank Charge with actual interest. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 30 days from the date of this order in default the Opposite Party have to pay Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund, west Bengal.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.
