Date of Filing : 13.01.2012
Date of Order : 17.04.2012
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR
Dated 17th APRIL 2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, B.Sc., BL, ……. PRESIDENT
Sri. T.NAGARAJA, B.Sc., LLB. …….. MEMBER
Smt. K.G.SHANTALA …….. MEMBER
Consumer Complaint No. 01 / 2012
G. Chinnappaiah,
S/o. Gangappa, Aged about 35 years,
R/o. Vajrangenahalli Village,
M.N. Halli Post, Thayalur Hobli,
Mulbagal Taluk.
(By Sri. R. Raghupathi Gowda, Adv.) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. The Manager,
Life Insurance Corporation of India,
KGF (LIC) Branch Office,
KGF, Bangarpet Taluk,
Kolar District.
2. The Branch Manager,
Syndicate Bank, KGF Branch,
KGF.
3. The Branch Manager,
Pragathi Gramina Bank, Gowribidanur Branch,
Gowribidanur.
4. The Branch Manager,
Pragathi Gramina Bank, KGF Branch,
KGF.
(By Sri. N. Sreenath, Adv. for OP1)
(By Sri. K.V. Shankarappa, Adv. for OP2)
(By Sri. J. Siman, Adv. for OP3) …… Opposite Parties
ORDER
By Sri. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant made u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.60,602/- as compensation are necessary:-
Complainant had obtained LIC Policy from OP1 in No. 363924148 and paid the half yearly premium at Rs.5,000/- for 3 years. Later he surrendered the Policy and took new Policy wherein he has to pay premium of Rs.3,457/-. OP1 adjusted this first premium amount from the surrender value of the Policy and said that balance amount will be returned through Cheque. When enquired with OP1, they stated that the amount has been sent by Speed Post on 19.11.2010. But that amount has not been received by the Complainant. Complainant issued legal notice to OP1 on17.10.2011 to which OP replied on 19.10.2011 stating that after deducting the premium of new policy balance of surrender value Rs.10,602/- has been sent by Cheque to the Complainant on 13.11.2010 drawn on OP2 and it was encashed on 14.01.2011. Complainant has not received the said Cheque nor encashed the said Cheque nor sent the said Cheque for collection and not to the account in his name. On enquiry, it was found that the said Cheque was presented by OP3 for clearance by Account No. 50 of Vasavi Souhardha Sahakari Niyamitha, Gowribidanur and was honoured. But it has not been cleared or presented or drawn by the Complainant. Complainant approached OP in this regard, but it is of no consequence.
2(a). In brief the version of the OP1 are:-
Holding of policy by the Complainant, its surrender, obtaining of new policy are all admitted. The surrender value of Rs.10,612/- is sent by Cheque to the Complainant and that Cheque has been cleared. Complainant gave complaint for non receipt of the amount. Hence, this OP made enquiry with the concerned Post Office and also enquired and found that the amount has been encashed in the account of OP4 in Account No. 636407 and postal authorities had intimated that envelope has been delivered at Darinayakanapalya and they are enquiring. Hence, Postal Authorities should have been impleaded as necessary party.
2(b) In brief the version of OP2 are:-
There is no privity of contract between the Complainant and this OP. OP1 has Current Account with this OP. OP1 has issued Cheque dtd. 16.11.2010 in the name of the G. Chinnappaiah for Rs.10,602/- which was sent to this OP by the OP3 through OP4 and this OP has paid the amount accordingly. Rest of the allegations are not known to this OP.
2(c). In brief the version of OPs 3 & 4 are:-
On 16.11.2010 the Cheque in question has been received by OP3 for collection from Vasavi Souhardha Sahakari Niyamitha, Gowribidanur on 11.01.2011 and the amount has been received and the same has been credited to the account in Vasavi Souhardha Sahakari Niyamitha, Gowribidanur on 20.01.2011. There is no privity of contract between this OP and the Complainant. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, parties have filed their respective affidavits and documents. Arguments were heard.
4. Points that arise for our consideration are:
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
(B) What order ?
5. Our answers for the above points are as under:
(A) Positive
(B) As per detailed order for the following reasons
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the Complainant surrendered his LIC Policy obtained from OP1 in No. 363924148 and OP has given new policy. After deducting the first premium amount of Rs.3,457/-, remaining surrender value of Rs.10,602/- had to be paid to the Complainant. It is also an admitted fact that OP1 has Current Account with OP2 and accordingly OP1 has issued Cheque No. 625980 drawn on OP2 and it was sent to the address given by the Complainant by Speed Post by OP1. It is also an admitted fact that the said Cheque has not been received by the Complainant nor he has encashed it. It is also an admitted fact that the Complainant intimated non receipt of Cheque to the OP1. It is also revealed that on enquiry it is found that the said Cheque was delivered to somebody at Darinayakanapalya and not to the address given by the Complainant. That means, the Cheque has not been received by the Complainant. It was also admitted by the OPs.
7. Further, it is also admitted that the said Cheque was presented for collection by the Account holder of Account No. 50 of Vasavi Souhardha Sahakara Nimitha, Gowribidanur for collection. The said Cheque was sent to OP3 for collection who sent it to OP4, who sent it to OP2, who paid that money to OP4 and it was given to OP3 and it was delivered to Account No. 50 of Vasavi Souhardha Sahakari Niyamitha, Gowribidanur. That means, the amount has not been paid to the Complainant, but it has been given to somebody else.
8. When this non-payment is brought to the notice of OP1, it should have recovered the money from the account holder of A/c. No. 50, Gowribidanur and paid it to the Complainant, that has not been done. This is nothing but deficiency in service. Merely sending Cheque through Post, OP1 is not absolved of liability to pay the amount to the Complainant. In this electronic era OP should have electronically transmitted the amount to the Complainant’s account. But sending the amount by Cheque by Speed Post is out dated. Even otherwise, when the Complainant has made known of this non-payment, OP1 should have pressed into the investigation process and recovered the money from the account holder of Account No. 50 of Vasavi Souhardha Sahakari Niyamitha, Gowribidanur, and paid it to the Complainant, that has not been done. This is nothing but deficiency in service.
9. The Learned Counsel for the OP1 cited decisions in 2010 AIR SCW 4420, AIR MYS 1970 and AIR 1976 Bombay 185. There is no dispute about the proposition of Law cited therein. These decisions are not applicable to the facts & circumstances of this case. Discussing & distinguishing these judgements will only bulge and bulk the records which is prohibited under Regulation 18 (5) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
10. In any event, with all these details of non delivery of the amount to the Complainant i.e., where it has been sent, to whom it has been given to the OP1 by OPs 2 to 4 and by the Complainant, OP1 is trying to shirk its responsibility in not paying the amount to the Complainant and not recovering it from Account No. 50 and the concerned. This is nothing but unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. This order will not come in the way of OP1 from recovering the amount from Account No. 50 of Vasavi Souhardha Sahakara Niyamitha, Gowribidanur.
11. Even otherwise, OP1 has not produced any acknowledgement to show that this particular Cheque has been received by the Complainant. In this case, OPs 2 to 4 are not liable to pay any amount to the Complainant. Hence, under these circumstances, we hold the point accordingly and pass the following order:
ORDER
1. Complaint is allowed in part.
2. OP1 is directed to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs.10,602/- together with interest thereon @ 12% P.A. from 17.10.2011 until payment within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. OP1 is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the Complainant.
4. OP1 is directed to send the amount as ordered at (2) & (3) above to the Complainant by Demand Draft through RPAD and submit to this Forum the compliance report with necessary documents within 45 days.
5. Send copy of this Order to the parties free of costs.
6. Return extra sets to the parties concerned under the Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulations 2005.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this the 17th of April 2012)
T. NAGARAJA K.G.SHANTALA H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Member Member President
SSS
