OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAMRUP,GUWAHATI
C.C.07/13
Present:-
1) Md.Sahadat Hussain, A.J.S. -President
2) Smti Archana Deka Lahkar - Member
3)Md Jamatul Islam - Member
Mr Surjit Singh -Complainant
S/O- Sri Suresh Prasad Singh
R/O- H.No-09, Lane No-3,Tarun Nagar,
Dispur,Guwahati,Assam,Pin-781005
-VS-
1) The Life Insurance Corporation of India -Opp.Party
Represented by the Zonal Manager,
East Zone Office, Jeevan Prakash
S.S.Road,Post Box No-06,Guwahati,Assam-781001
2) The Branch Manager
Life Insurance Corporation of India
Guwahati Branch No-II,
Lakshmi Service Station
Opp. Panchabati Ashram,Silpukhuri,Guwahati-03
Appearance:
Complainant himself argued his case.
Ld.advocate Mr.Ramendra Nath Dev Sarma for the opp.party
Date of argument - 27.2.2018
Date of judgment - 28.3.2018
JUDGMENT
This is a complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
1) The complaint filed by Sri Surjit Singh against Life Insurance Corporation of India , represented by Zonal Manager, East Zone, Guwahati and the Branch Manager, LICI,Guwahati Branch II, and notices were served on the opp.parties and the opp.parties filed written statement on 26.7.13 and complainant also filed a rejoinder to the written statement filed by the opp.parties on 29.11.15. The complainant filed his evidence on affidavit on 29.5.15 and he was cross-examined by the opp.party side and thereafter, one, Manna Bhattacharjya filed evidence for the opp.parties and she was also cross-examined by the complainant side. The complainant filed his written argument on 11.5.2017 and Ld advocate Mr.Ramendra Nath Dev Sarma filed written argument for the opp.parties on 27.2.2018 and finally on 27.2.2018 we have heard oral argument of the complainant as well as of Ld advocate Mr.Ramendra Nath Dev Sarma for the op.parties and today we deliver the judgment which is as below-
2) The crux of the case of the complainant is that he did a life insurance policy (money back policy) bearing policy No. 481444535 with the Opp.Party No.2 and Opp.Party No.1 issued cheque of Rs.50,000/- vide cheque No. 009704 dtd. 15.6.11 in favour of him and while he open the envelop , he found that the said cheque was torn up condition, but he deposited it to his banker State Bank of India, GMC Branch, Bhangagorh, but the same was returned by his banker stating that the said bank draft was mutilated and post dated and he returned the said bank draft to Opp.Party No.2 vide letter dtd. 13.5.11and after weeks he approach Opp.Party No.1 for the bank draft, but Opp.Party No.2 straightly denied having received the bank draft back from him and then he vide letter 24.2.2012 requested Opp.Party No.2 and for releasing the bank draft, but the latter did not release the bank draft and then he filed complaint before Insurance Ombudsman on 15.6.2012 at around 12.00 hours claiming the due amount from the opp.parties with interest @ 12% per annum . But the said complaint was not received by the Ombudsman and then submitted the complaint to the Ombudsman through post (speed post) from G.P.O., Panbazar at around 13.00 hours being Speed Post No. ES 59825453519 and that complaint was not received by the Ombudsman on 18.6.2012 stating that addressee was absent, but complaint dtd. 15.6.2012 was received initially on 20.6.2012 by the Insurance Ombudsman and thereafter, from 15.6.12 he received calls on his mobile from Opp.Party No.2 being No.9435354693 as well as from Ombudsman phone No. 9435183913 asking him to settle the matter and then he informed this fact to the Chairman Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority, Hyderabad by letter dtd.18.6.12 and on 29.6.12 Opp.Party No.2 sent a letter containing a bank draft of Rs.15,000/- dtd. 15.6.12 ,but he under protest returned the bank draft to the insurance company vide his letter dtd. 5.7.12 stating tht mater is pending with the insurance Ombudsman and he is entitled to interest on the delay period. Ombudsman vide his award dtd.21.12.12 directed the opp.parties to pay him Rs.15,000/- with interest @ 8% from 15.6.2011 to 15.6.2012 holding that there was deficiency of service on the part of the opp.parties. but he was not satisfied with the award dtd.21.12.12 granting interest @ 8% and that too till 15.6.2012 without any penal cost. This activities of the opp.parties caused financial loss to him and as such their activities amount to deficiency of service towards him and also caused mental tension to him and therefore, he is entitled to compensation of Rs.13,000/- as well as Rs.15,000/- with interest @19% per annum from 15.6.2011 and the cost of the proceeding from the opp.party.
3) The pleading of the opp.parties in brief is that the case of the complainant is wholly misconceive; the complaint is false one. The complaint has a policy vide No. 481444535 with them. The Opp.Party No.1 issued cheque No.009704 amounting to Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant on 15.6.11 which was send to him prior to 15.6.11 for convenience and while it was send it was in good condition. If the complainant received the said cheque in torn out condition he ought to have returned the same to them immediately prior to depositing the same to his banker, but he did not deposit the same , although he received it prior to due date. The complainant deposited the cheque to his bank draft prior to 15.6.11 and so his bank returned the cheque to him as post dated. Thus, it is not understood if the cheque was in torn out condition then why the banker accepted the same. The complainant did not submit to them any return memo issued by his bank draft. Opp.Party No.2 received the letter dtd.13.5.2011 , but original copy of aforesaid cheque was not returned to Opp.Party No.2 and after receiving letter dtd.13.5.11 they communicated to their banker to cancel the earlier cheque issued in the name of the complainant and after getting clearance from their banker after completing all formalities as required in that regard they issued fresh cheque dtd. 15.5.11 to the complainant. Opp.Party No.2 received letters dtd. 24.2.12, 14,5,12 from the complainant . They issued fresh cheque to the complainant on his request which also he refused to accept. The delay in issuing the fresh cheque was caused by a thorough enquiry required as per rule in cancellation of earlier cheque. Non-submission of earlier cheque to the opp.party created doubt for which proper enquiry was required in cancellation of earlier cheque and under this circumstances we have to say that the complainant himself is responsible for his mental agony if any suffered by him and that is why he is not entitled to get any compensation. They are ready to issue fresh cheque to the tune of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as per policy condition which he is entitled to get back from them. The case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.
4) Filing rejoinder the complainant further states that the opp.parties raised fictitious allegation upon him. His bank record that the cheque deposited was mutilated cheque and postdated which appears from the record of the bank. It is not true that original copy of the cheque was not returned to Opp.Party No.2. If, he did not deposited original cheque, the opp.parties would have asked him to submit the original torn out cheque. The opp.party admitted before Ombudsman that they have received the original mutilated cheque. The opp.party sat over the letter dtd. 13.5.2011, 24.2.2012 and 14.5.2012 for one year and only when he approach insurance ombudsman on 15.6.2012 Opp.Party No.2 woke up and started approaching him over mobile to settle the matter without persuing the complainant before Ombudsman . The opp.parties admits that their deficiency of service on their part by accepting the Award given by the Ombudsman . In compliance of the Award, Opp.Party No.2 by letter dtd. 1.1.2013 asked the complainant to submit the NEFT Mendate for payment of S/B due alongwith panel interest as per Ombudsman Award and thereby they admitted deficiency of service towards the complainant.
5) We have perused pleading as well as evidence of both the parties. We have also perused argument of both sides. After perusing the pleading of the parties , it appears to us that both sides admit that a cheque of Rs.15,000/- being cheque No-009704 dtd.15/06/2011 was sent in favour of the complainant by Opp.Party No-1(LICI,Represented by the Zonal Manager, S.S.Road,Guwahati) as a payback installment of money back Policy No-481444535, which the complainant have done with the opp. party and when the cheque was presented by the complainant at GMC branch of SBI ,Bhangagarh for encashment , the same was returned by the said bank on the ground that, it is mutilated and post dated.
6) We have perused the Exhibit-2 , which is a letter , written to the complainant by the Public Information Officer ,SBI,GMC branch on 30/08/2013 shows that on his RTI Petition , the Public Information Officer, SBI,GMC branch vide that letter informed him that his cheque for Rs.15,000/- bearing Cheque No-009704 dtd.15/06/2011 had been returned on 12/05/2011 . The annexed statement of that letter there is a note that, which is dtd.12/05/2011 which specifically indicates that, the said cheque was not paid as it was a mutilated and post dated cheque . Thus it is crystal clear that, the concerned cheque was returned by the bank on the ground that, it was mutilated and post dated cheque . The complainant states in evidence that after receiving back the said cheque from the bank he immediately sent it to Opp.Party No-2 through his letter dtd.13/05/2011 but Opp.Party No-2 straightly denied having received the said letter and the bank draft/cheque although he shown receipt of letter of dtd.13/05/2011 and thereafter he visited office of the opp. parties on several occasions and wrote also letters on 24/02/2012 and 15/05/2012 for payment of the due and finally he approached insurance ombudsman and then he received phone calls from mobile No-9435354693 on his mobile from the office of the Opp.party No-2 to settle the matter without pressing the complaint filed before the ombuseman ; and he received a letter dtd.29/06/2012 forwarding a bank draft of Rs.15,000/- dtd.15/06/2012 but he returned the bank draft under protest through letter dtd.05/07/2012 ; and then after the ombudsman vide his order dtd.21/12/2012 directed the opp. party to make payment of Rs.15,000/- to him with interest @8% per annum from 15/06/2011; and Opp.party No-2 vide letter dtd.01/01/2013 asked him to submit his NEFT mandate for payment of S/B due along with penal interest as per order of the ombudsman. The OPW Ms Manna Bhattacharjee admits the entire above statement of the complainant and she also admits that the ombudsman found that the opp. party was deficiency of service. She also admit that before order of the ombudsman they sent bank draft to the tune of Rs.15,000 to the complainant but complainant sent back the said draft vide letter dtd.05/07/2012 because the dispute was pending before the ombudsman . She also admits that vide letter dtd.14/05/2012 requested the company of the opp. party that inspite of several request personally as well as through letter dtd.13/05/2011 the payment of Rs.15,000/- had been done . This admission made by OPW No-2 supports the statement of the complainant to the fact that, the Cheque No-009704 dtd.15/06/2011 which was issued to the complainant by the opp. party was a mutilated and post dated cheque and that was returned by the bank of the complainant mainly on the ground that it was a mutilated cheque and after receiving the said cheque the complainant deposited the said cheque to Opp.Party No-2 and requested Opp.Party No-2 to issue a fresh cheque / bank draft but they refused to issue a fresh cheque and when he brought the matter to the ombudsman , the Opp.Party No-2 sent dtd.15/06/2012 to the tune of Rs.15,000 to the complainant which he received on 29/06/2012 , but he returned the said bank draft vide his letter dtd.05/07/2012 stating that the matter is pending before the ombudsman . Thus we have found that Opp.party No-2 vide Cheque No-009704 dtd.15/06/2011 sent Rs.15,000/- to the complainant as money back instalment of his policy No-481444535 but it was a mutilated and post dated cheque and complainant’s banker returned the said cheque to him on the ground of mutilated cheque and post dated cheque and after receiving back the said cheque he immediately deposited the said cheque to Opp.Party No-2 with a request to pay him the due but Opp.Party No-2 refused to pay the said amount to him inspite of his repeated request but Opp.Party No-2 on 29/06/2012 sent a bank draft of Rs.15,000/- dtd. 15/06/2012 but the complainant returned the said bank draft on the ground that the matter is pending before the ombudsman . The cheque was returned by the banker on 12/05/2011 and Opp.Party No-2 issued the fresh bank draft against the said banned cheque only on 29/06/2012. Thus it is clear that due to negligence of the opp. parties, the complainant was out of touch the amount of Rs.15,000/- . So, it is a clear case of deficiency in service towards the complainant.
7) We have also found that the complainant returned the bank draft dtd.15/06/2012 on the ground that the matter was pending before the ombudsman . So, we are of opinion that the ground of returning the said bank draft is a justified ground. The ombudsman passed his order dtd.12/12/2012 and directed the opp. party to pay Rs.15,000/- alongwith 8% interest per annum from 15/06/2011 (date of first cheque) to 15/06/2012 (the date of bank draft). The complainant state that he is not satisfied with the order of the ombudsman as he has incurred a handsome amount for approaching the opp. party and the ombudsman for payment of the said amount. From evidence of the complainant and of the opp. party, it also appears to us that, the complainant visited Opp.Party No-2 and also made corresponces with them on several occasions for payment of the bounced cheque and he also visited the ombudsman on several date and this factual situation proves that the complainant had incurred a handsome amount in the endeavour for payment of the banned cheque and therefore he is entitled an amount against the expenditure made in approaching the opp. party for the persuit and so his prayer for Rs.3000/- on that count is justified one.
8) It is already found that the opp. party side harassed the complainant by refusing to repayment of the said bounced cheque in due time and put him also in mental agony. So, we are of opinion that, he should be entitled to atleast Rs.5,000 as compensation for causing such harassment.
9) It is already found that, the opp. party side committed deficiency of service by refusing to repayment of the said bounced cheque .That is why we hold that the opp. parties are liable to pay value of the said cheque with interest @12% per annum from 15/06/2011 till full satisfaction of the award . We also hold that, the complainant is entitled to another amount of Rs.5000/- as cost of the proceeding.
10) As per provision of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 the award of the obmudsman has no bearing in deciding the present complaint by this forum and that is why filing of present complaint by the complainant before this forum can not be barred by the award passed by the ombudsman .
11) Summing up our discussion as above, we hold that the complaint has merit and the complainant has succeeded to prove his case. Accordingly, the complaint against both the opp. parties is allowed on contest and they are directed to pay Rs.15,000/- with interest @12% par annum from 15/06/2011 till satisfaction of this award to the complainant as an installment of money back policy No-481444535 which they had issued vide Cheque No-009704 dtd.15/06/2011 but returned by his banker and also to pay him Rs.3000/- as compensation towards the cost incurred by him in approaching them for repayment of the said bounced cheque and Rs.5000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony to him as well as Rs.5000/- as cost of proceeding, to which ,they are jointly and severally liable.
They are directed to satisfy the award within 45 days, in default, other amounts shall also carry interest in the same rate from this day.
Given in our hands and seal on this 28th March ,2018.
(Smt Archana Deka Lahkar) (Md.Jamatul Islam) (Md.Sahadat Hussain) Member Member President
