D.o.F:1/12/09 D.o.O:18/5/2010 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD CC.261/09 Dated this, the 18th day of May 2010. PRESENT SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT SMT.P.RAMADEVI :MEMBER SMT.P.P.SYAMALADEVI : MEMBER Mohammed Farooq Al-Abrar Near Simpco, : Complainant Beach Road,,Nellikkunnu,Kasaragod (In person) Manager, ICICI Bank, Kasaragod Branch :Opposite party (Adv.Rajesh V.Nair, Thalassery) ORDER SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ: PRESIDENT The case of the complainant in brief is that he is a holder of policy issued by ICICI Prudential Life Insurance company. The annual premium to be paid is 1,00,000/- rupees. It has to be paid in 2 half yearly instalments of 50,000/- rupees each. The complainant is employed abroad. The insurance agent informed the complainant that premium amount can be remitted in ICICI Bank. The complainant entrusted the amount with his father and directed him to remit the half yearly premium of insurance. On 22/2/2008 complainant’s father remitted the amount in the cash counter of opposite party and they accepted the amount . Complainant’s father then told the staff of the opposite party to credit the amount towards the half yearly premium for the ICICI Prudential life insurance policy held by his son. Then the employee of opposite party entered the policy number in place of the account number in pay-in-slip . Thereafter complainant received a letter dt.26/3/08 from ICICI prudential Life Insurance stating that the lapsation of his policy on account of the non- payment of premium that was fell due on 22/2/08. Later complainant returned from abroad and enquired with the opposite party and ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company to know about the deposit of Rs.50,000/- he made in the cash counter of opposite party Bank. Both the bank and the insurer failed to give him any reply even after so many visits to their office . Therefore, the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party to refund the amount of Rs.50,000/- or to credit that amount in the ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. towards the half yearly premium of his policy. He also prays for the interest @12% for Rs.50,000/- together with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and harassment . 2. Opposite party filed their version. According to them, they have not received any payment made by the complainant on 22/2/2008. The ICICI Prudential Life Insurance is a different entity and the opposite party Bank has nothing to do with ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Opposite party can’t receive any cash payment in respect of ICICI Prudential life. The complainant has no account in the Bank. Therefore, it is very strange and extra ordinary to say that the complainant had remitted 50,000/- rupees in opposite party Bank. Had the complainant immediately approached opposite party bank on receipt of letter from ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. regarding non-payment of policy, then the opposite party could have conducted a thorough enquiry regarding the allegation of the complainant. The Bank has fixed web cams in all places inside the bank and if any complaint received within 3 months from the date of payment the bank can retrieve the same and identify the staff who has committed any mischief using the web cam stored datas. The web cam can only store the images upto 3 months . Since the complaint is filed only after a year it is not possible to trace out the same. The ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. is necessary party to this complaint. The opposite party also denied the issue of any receipt to complainant evidencing the receipt of any payment and the complainant for illegal gain fabricated the receipt produced in the case. The complainant after returning from gulf has not contacted the opposite party and ICICI Prudential Life insurance Co. and they were never unable to give proper explanation. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed. 3. Complainant is represented by his father as authorized representative. He is examined as PW1. Exts.A1&A2 are marked. Both sides heard. Documents perused carefully. 4. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of parties 2 Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party 3 What order as to relief and costs? 5. PW1 deposed that he deposited 50,000/- rupees on 22/2/2008 and obtained Ext.A1 receipt. He further deposed that at the time of depositing the amount they never told him that the payment of premium to the prudential policy did not accept there. He further added that on prior occasion also he remitted the premium of 1,00,000 rupees towards the aforesaid policy in the same bank. In cross examination by the learned counsel for opposite party he deposed that the first premium of 100000/-rupees was remitted in the SB account maintained by the agent of Prudential life insurance with opposite party bank. He denied the suggestion that the opposite party bank has not collected the premium since they have no authority to collect it 6. Point No.1: The learned counsel for opposite party Sri Rajesh V Nair contended that ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co is a necessary party to this case and without them a fair adjudication is not possible. We do not find any force to the said argument. The case of the complainant is that he deposited an amount with opposite party bank but it is credited nowhere. It is not the case of the complainant that the opposite party bank has passed the amount to ICICI Prudential Life Insurance company and the comapny failed to account it Ext.A2 is a letter issued by ICICI Prudential life insurance to the complainant intimating the lapsation of policy on account of non payment of premium. So in no way ICICI Prudential insurance is connected with the case and hence they are quite unnecessary party to the proceedings. 7. Point Nos.2&3: Learned counsel for opposite party fairly conceded that the relationship between the complainant and opposite party would come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vimal Chandra Grover vs. Bank of India reported in II(2000) CPJ 11(SC). But he vehemently contended that the Bank has not collected any amount remitted by PW1 towards the premium for the Prudential Life insurance, as they are not authorized to collect it. He further argued that if the complainant immediately after the receipt of Ext.A2 notice had approached them, then they could have find out the wrong doer of the opposite party bank who committed the mischief, sine their activities are stored through the web cam for a period of 3 months. The next contention put forth by the learned counsel for opposite party is that Ext.A1 receipt is a concocted and fabricated one by complainant in order to make illegal gain. This argument appears to be not plausible. Ext.A1 is the pay-in-slip issued from Ist opposite party towards the acceptance of half yearly premium remitted by PW1. It is a hand written one. So it would be easy for the opposite party to find out the culprit by scrutinizing and comparing the handwriting contained in Ext.A1 with the handwritings contained in other bank records during that particular day. The other contention of opposite party is that Ext.A1, pay-in-slip is fabricated by the complainant to make illegal gain. Had it been so the opposite party would have initiated criminal proceeding against the complainant earlier. 8. Bank being a custodian of trust and faith reposed in it by the public at large is under an obligation to provide services to the consumers as that of a trustee. However in this case it is seen that the opposite party Bank has breached the trust and faith and instead of solacing the complainant by recompensing him for the loss on account of the mischief committed by one of their staff immediately on realizing the mistake they tried to justify their stand and even defended the case taking untenable contentions. What else is it if it not deficiency in service?. Therefore we find that opposite party committed gross deficiency in service and therefore, they are liable to compensate the complainant for the loss hardships and mental agony caused to him. 9. Reliefs& costs: The complainant had remitted 50,000 rupees on 22/2/2008 with opposite party bank that went futile as far as the insurance premium remittance is concerned. In addition to that he also suffered much mental agony and hardships on account of the lapsation of his policy of prudential life due to the deficient nature of service rendered by opposite party. Therefore, they are liable to compensate the complainant adequately. Hence the complaint is allowed and opposite party is directed to refund 50,000/- rupees together with a compensation of 10,000/- rupees and cost of 2000/- rupees. Time for compliance is limited to 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order. Failing which opposite party shall further pay interest @12% per annum for 50,000/- rupees from the date of remittance of the amount ie. 22/2/2008 to till date of payment. Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT Exts.A1-22/2/08- pay-in-slip A2-26/3/08- letter issued by OP PW1-K.A.Abdulla-father of the complainant. Sd/ Sd/ Sd/ MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT eva/ /Forwarded by Order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | HONORABLE P.P.Shymaladevi, Member | HONORABLE K.T.Sidhiq, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE P.Ramadevi, Member | | 
