DATE OF FILING : 19.4.2010
BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 18th day of October, 2010
Present:
SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT
SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER
SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.72/2010
Between
Complainant : Augustine Jose,
Kodimattathil House,
Velliyamattom P.O.,
Thodupuzha, Idukki District.
(By Adv: K.M. Sanu)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Kalayanthani Branch,
Kalayanthani P.O.,
Idukki District.
(By Adv: Sibi Thomas)
2. The Manager,
City Bank,
M.G. Road, Padma Junction,
Ernakulam, Kochi – 35.
(By Advs: Sijimon K.Augustine&K.J. Thomas)
3. The Manager,
Union Bank of India,
Ernakulam Branch (Service Branch),
Kochi – 11
(By Advs: V.C. Sebastian & C.M. Tomy)
O R D E R
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHANAN (PRSIDENT)
The complainant is a medi claim policy holder of Tata AIG Life Insurance Company and was promptly paying premium from 16.1.2006 onwards. He is also an account holder of the opposite party bank as account No.5948. The policy was promptly renewed on January 16th of every year by the complainant with an amount of Rs.6,124/-. So in order to renew the policy in the year 2010, the complainant issued a cheque of the opposite party bank on 15.1.2010 for an amount of Rs.6,124/- at about 4 pm to the Moovattupuzha branch of the insurance company. Usually these cheques were sent for collection from the office of the insurance company at Ernakulam. When the said cheque was sent for collection by the insurance company, it was returned by the opposite parties, with a memo stating "refer to drawer" on 21.1.2010. A letter was issued from the insurance company stating this fact to the complainant. There was sufficient balance in the account of the complainant on 16.1.2010 onwards, but the opposite party deliberately dishonoured the cheque on 19.1.2010 because of the negligence from the part of them, because of the act of the opposite party,
the medi claim policy of the complainant became discontinued, which was regularly renewing by the complainant for the last 4 years. It made heavy financial loss to the complainant. The opposite party dishonoured the cheque produced by the complainant with not justifiable ground and it is a deficiency from the part of them. The complainant had to travel several times to the office of the insurance company at Ernakulam for the renewal of the policy because of the act of the opposite party. So this petition is filed for getting compensation against the opposite parties due to the dishonour of the cheque.
2. As per the written version filed by the 1st opposite party, the Tata AIG life insurance company is a necessary party to the complaint and the non-mentioning of the said company in the party array has made the complaint a vexatious one. This opposite party has not returned the cheque and they had no opportunity for the same. Though the complainant has not mentioned the number of the cheque he had presented for collection, non of the cheques of the complainant has reached the opposite party during the period mentioned in the complaint. The opposite party has done nothing for the lapse of the medi claim policy of the complainant. The incident narrated in the complaint is completely outside the control of the opposite party. On the enquiry made by the opposite party, it revealed that one cheque of the complainant drawn in favour of Tata AIG insurance company has reached the Service Branch of the Union Bank of India, at Ernakulam and since the said Branch has no such account, they have returned the cheque with a memo mentioning the reason “refer to drawer”. The said cheque reached the service branch of Union Bank of India from the City Bank Ernakulam wherein the cheque has been presented by the Tata AIG for collection. The City Bank instead of sending the cheque to the Kalayanthani Branch of the Union Bank of India has mistakenly sent to the service branch of the Union Bank of India at Ernakulam which has ended upon the dishonour of the cheque. So there is no deficiency from the part of the 1st opposite party.
3. As per the written version filed by the 2nd opposite party, this opposite party is not a consumer of the complainant. The complainant is a consumer of Tata AIG Life Insurance Company and the alleged cheque is drawn towards the premium of the medi claim and the insurance company is also a necessary party to the complaint. As this opposite party is carrying on business within the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble CDRF at Ernakulam, the present complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The dishonour of the cheque drawn on the 1st opposite party is not within the knowledge of this opposite party. The complainant has not mentioned the number of the cheque which was dishonoured. The opposite party is not having any privity of contract with the complainant. So this opposite party is not at all involved in the alleged transaction and there is no deficiency from the part of this opposite party.
4. As per the written version filed by the 3rd opposite party, the complaint is regarding the exclusive transaction between the complainant and Tata AIG Life Insurance Company. The said Tata AIG Life Insurance Company is a necessary party to the complaint and the non mentioning of the said company in the party array has made the complaint a vexatious one. This opposite party has done nothing for the lapse of the medi claim policy of the complainant. The cheque No.18488 for Rs.6,124/- issued by Mr. Augustine Jose, SB account holder of Kalayanthani Branch favouring Tata AIG Life Insurance Company was presented by City Bank, Ernakulam for payment through MICR clearing on 21.1.2010. The branch returned the cheque with reason “refer to drawer” as the cheque was not MICR and 15 digit account number was not available on it. The service branch was working as a clearance bank as per the directions of the Reserve Bank. The service branch is entitled to honour the MICR (Magnetic Ink Character Recognition) cheque or cheque at par. On enquiry, it is revealed that the cheque of the complainant drawn in favour of Tata AIG insurance company reached the service branch of Union Bank of India from the City Bank Ernakulam has been presented by the Tata AIG for collection. The City Bank instead of sending the cheque to the Kalayanthani branch of Union Bank of India has mistakenly sent to the service branch of Union Bank of India at Ernakulam which has ended upon the dishonour of the cheque. This opposite party has nothing to do with the above transaction and this complaint has been frivolously and vexatiously filed against the opposite party without any sufficient reasons. The deficiency of service is on the part of the City Bank and the negligence is from Tata AIG. The holder of the cheque could have presented the cheque before UBI Kalayanthani branch, when their attention was invited by this opposite party. The opposite party instructed to “refer to drawer” in order to call attention of the collecting bank and the drawer to present before Drawee Bank. So there is no deficiency from the part of this opposite party.
5. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
6. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P4 marked on the side of the complainant.
7. The POINT :- This petition is filed for getting compensation against the dishonour of the cheque for the insurance premium amount. The complainant deposed as PW1. PW1 issued a cheque for Rs.6,124 of the Union Bank of India, Kalayanthani branch, in which PW1 is having an account as 5948. The cheque was dated 15.1.2010 and it was issued at the office of the insurance company at Moovattupuzha at about 4 p.m., on 15.1.2010. PW1 was having enough money in his account on 16.1.2010 to honour the cheque and Ext.P1 is the statement of account of the complainant's bank account. Usually, these cheque leaves are presenting by the insurance company from their office at Ernakulam and the said cheque was dishonoured on 21.1.2010 with a memo “refer to drawer” and a letter was issued by the insurance company to the complainant stating this fact. The said cheque was produced and marked as Ext.P3 and Ext.P2 is the letter written by the insurance company, Tata AIG to the complainant. The complainant's insurance policy was became lapsed because of the act of the opposite party, the complainant approached the insurance company's Ernakulam office for renewing the same. As per the cross examination of the learned counsel of the opposite party, PW1 deposed that he is not aware of the due date for the insurance premium and he knows that it is in the month of January. The cheque was issued because there was no cash with PW1.
As per the complainant, he issued the cheque with account No.5948 of Union Bank of India, Kalayanthani branch, for renewing his Tata AIG life insurance policy for an the amount of Rs.6,124/- dated 15.1.2010 to the insurance office at Moovattupuzha. When it was presented by the insurance company through the 2nd opposite party for collection, the 2nd opposite party sent it to the 3rd opposite party. But the 3rd opposite party dishonoured the same stating “refer to drawer”. So the complainant was not able to renew the policy and it made a heavy loss to the complainant. But as per the 1st opposite party, 2nd opposite party is only a collection agent and the insurance company is not a party to the array who produced the cheque before the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party sent the cheque for collection through the 3rd opposite party which is the Union Bank of India, service branch at Ernakulam and the memo received from the Union Bank of India, service branch, Ernakulam has been written to the insurance company itself. The 3rd opposite party who is the Union Bank of India, Ernakulam branch dishonoured the cheque stating the reason “refer to drawer”, because there is no such account in the bank for the same, it is done because that the cheque was not a MICR and 15 digit account number was not available on it. After the launching of the Core Bank Assessment, as per the directives of the Reserve Bank, the service branch is
entitled to honour the MICR (Magnetic Ink Character Recognition) cheque or cheque at par. So they have done because there is no account in the bank for honour the cheque and also the account was not correct as per the Core Bank Assessment, so instructed to “refer to drawer” in order to call the attention of the collecting bank and the drawer to present before drawee bank. As per the 1st opposite party, no such cheque came for collection in the 1st opposite party bank and not aware in connection with the case. They have never returned the cheque and they are not liable for the same.
The complainant himself admitted that there was no sufficient balance at the time of issuance of the cheque. The cheque was issued on 15.1.2010 and as per Ext.P1 account statement produced by the complainant, there was no sufficient balance to honour the cheque on 15.1.2010. But the complainant argued that on 16.1.2010, there was sufficient balance in the account because it would take time to reach for collection and at the time when the cheque came on 16.1.2010 for collection, there was sufficient balance in account. As per the complainant, the insurance policy was lapsed because of the dishonour of the cheque. But the complainant is not aware about the due date of the renewal of the policy and he knows that it is on January. There is no evidence produced by the complainant to show that the due date of the policy is on 15.1.2010 or 16.1.2010 of January, 2010. The complainant is not aware that whether the insurance company produced the cheque on due time for collection. Here the complaint is filed for getting compensation for damages sustained by the complainant due to the lapse of the policy. But there is no evidence to show that the complainant sustained any damage due to the lapse of the policy. There is no claim raised in that period by the complainant.
So the complainant himself was not able to pay the amount on the due date because he was not having money and he produced a cheque for the renewal amount. But on the day, on which the cheque was produced, there was no sufficient amount to honour the cheque. The complainant is having account in the 1st opposite party's branch which is at Kalayanthani, but the cheque was sent for collection by the insurance company at Ernakulam and the 2nd opposite party sent the same to the service branch of the Union Bank of India. The 3rd opposite party dishonoured the cheque only because the Account Number was different as per the direction of the Reserve Bank. 15 digit number is prevailing now and the cheque is not having such 15 digit number because it was an old one. So they dishonoured it by the reason “refer to drawer”. They dishonoured the cheque not with the reason of insufficient fund. The insurance company has produced the cheque for collection and the company is not arrayed as a party to this litigation. The insurance company discontinued the policy of the complainant and the complainant caused loss because of the same. But the complainant never tried to array the insurance company as a party to the suit. So we think that there is no deficiency proved by the complainant against the opposite parties.
Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 18th day of October, 2010
Sd/-
SRI. LAIJU RAMAKRISHANAN (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SMT. SHEELA JACOB (MEMBER)
Sd/-
SMT. BINDHU SOMAN (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - Augustine Jose
On the side of the Opposite Parties :
Nil.
Exhibits :
Ext.P1 - Statement of account of the complainant's bank account.
Ext.P2 - The letter written by the Tata AIG Insurance Company Ltd., to the complainant dated 29.1.2010.
Ext.P3 - Cheque dated 15.1.2010 of UBI, Kalayanthani.
Ext.P4 - The letter from the UBI Service Branch,showing the reason for dishonour of the cheque.
On the side of the Opposite Parties :
Nil.
