DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the  15^th  day of December 2014 

Present:  Smt.Seena.H.  President

              Smt.Suma.K.P. Member

                                                                          Date of filing :   22/05/2014

           CC No.73/2014

Sudha.K.R.

W/o.T.P.Satheeshkumar,

Karippottil House,

Vadanakurissi Post,

Ottapalam Taluk,

Palakkad – 679124                                 -                  Complainant

(Party in Person)

        Vs 

1.The Manager,

LIC  of India,

Ottapalam – 679101

(By Adv.T.P.George)

2.The Post Master,

Head Post Office,

Ottapalam – 679 101

(By Party in Person)

3.Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Ongallur Branch,

Kalladipatta Post,

Ottapalam Taluk – 679 313

(By Adv.Shiju Kuriakose)

4.The Manager,

State Bank of India,

Pattambi Branch,

Pattambi

(By Adv.Sini.G)

5.The Manager,

Federal Bank Ltd.,

Pattambi Branch,

Pattambi

(By Adv.T.V.Pradheesh)

6.Sudha.K

W/o.Unnikrishnan

Melepurath House,

Vadanamkurissi Post,

Shoranur Via.                                      -                 Opposite parties

(By Adv.Surjith Kottayil)

O R D E R

Order by Smt.SEENA.H PRESIDENT

Brief case of the complainant:-

Complainant has availed a money back policy from 1^st opposite party. As per the terms of the policy complainant is entitled for a money back of Rs.15,000/- as on 23/02/2010. Since the complainant has not received  the same after the due date, she approached 1^st opposite party and enquired. 1^st opposite party intimated that the cheque was already issued in the name of the complainant. Complainant waited for the receipt of the cheque, but she never received the same. Complainant issued a letter dated  15/09/2011 to 1^st opposite party stating that she has not received the cheque and also intimating that she has only account in State Bank of India, Shoranur Branch and she doubt that somebody else would have received the cheque. 1^st opposite party after enquiry with 2^nd opposite party has issued a letter stating that 2^nd opposite party has intimated that Registered letter No.9494 dated 24/03/2010 was served to correct addressee on 27/03/2010. Complainant was not served with the said registered letter. Hence complainant again sent a letter dated 29/11/2011 to 1^st opposite party requesting to pay the amount. 1^st opposite party assured to take steps. Thereafter also many times complainant directly approached 1^st opposite party, but 1^st opposite party took no positive steps to settle the grievance. Complainant sent an application dated 18/02/2014 under Right to Information Act to the Superintendent of Post offices, Ottapalam Division enquiring upon whom the registered letter No.9494 dated 24/03/2010  was delivered. 2^nd  opposite party replied stating that the same has already been weeded out. Thereafter appeal was preferred to Post Master General, Northern Region, Calicut requesting for documents pertaining to the disputed delivery. They also reported that since the preservative period was over no documents was available.

Complainant further received a letter dated 4/01/2013 from 1^st opposite party stating that on enquiry with 3^rd opposite party it is understood that one Sudha.K, W/o.Unnikrishnan, Melepurath House, Vadanamkurissi Post has collected the amount on 30/03/2010. It was also stated that the complaint will be taken up by the LIC’s Legal Department for further steps. Since no steps was taken by the LIC, complainant issued a complaint  dated 29/04/2013 to LIC, Divisional Manager, Thrissur with copy of all the correspondence. Thereafter also 1^st opposite party took no steps to settle the grievance.

According to the complainant, 1^st opposite party ought to have sent the registered letter insured.  The act of 1^st opposite party amounts to clear deficiency in service on their part.

2^nd opposite party without confirming the identity of the party delivered the registered cover to a wrong addressee. Further opposite party failed to preserve the documents in connection with the said delivery. The acts amounts to clear deficiency in service on their part.

According to  the complainant, opposite parties 3,4  & 5 has also committed gross deficiency in service in issuing the cheque amount  of the cheque issued in favour of the complainant Sudha.K.R. to a totally different person Sudha.K. Opposite party 3 to 5 ought to have verified the name and address thoroughly  before issuance. Complainant suffered a lot due to callous act of all the opposite parties. Hence the complaint. Complainant prays for a total amount of Rs.90,000/- as compensation.

Opposite parties 1,2,3 &4 filed version. Opposite party 5 though entered appearance, has not filed version. Opposite party 6 set exparte. Thereafter petition was filed to set aside exparte order which was allowed on cost. Cost was not paid and hence petition was dismissed.

1^st opposite party filed version contending the following:

1^st opposite party admitted that the complainant  has taken a money back LIC Policy No.775298550 in the name and address Smt.Sudha.K.R. Karipottil, Vadanakurissi Post, Palakkad District.  The first survival benefit  installment of Rs.15,000/- was due to the  policyholder/complainant on 23/03/2010. A cheque bearing number 10066404 dated 23/3/2010 for Rs.15,000/- from the Federal Bank Ottapalam Branch in favour of Sudha.K.R. was drawn and sent to her in the address as shown in the policy by registered post. That cheque was encashed on 30/03/2010 and that encashment could be seen from the account extract of the LIC’s account with the Federal Bank Ottapalam, Branch.

The complainant has sent a letter dated 15/9/2011 after a period of one and half years to  opposite party stating that she has not received the first installment of Survival Benefit of Rs.15,000/- so far. Immediately on 30/09/2011  opposite party has sent a letter to the 2^nd opposite party requesting them to verify that to whom the registered  article was delivered. On 17/10/2011, 2^nd opposite party has sent a reply to  opposite party stating that the registered article was delivered to the addressee on 27/03/2010. Immediately   opposite party has conveyed the information to the complainant and also provided a copy of the letter received from the 2^nd opposite party. Opposite party had contacted Federal Bank, Ottapalam, SBI Pattambi and SBI Ongallur by letter dated 05/09/2013, 27/09/2013 respectively. Opposite party had also sent letter and mails to the third opposite party on 20/12/2013 and 01/01/2014. On 02/1/2014 SBI Ongallur branch informed opposite party No.1 that the cheque was encashed by Smt.Sudha.K., W/o.Unnikrishnan, Meleppurath House, Vadanamkurissi through her account number 30327963208 on 30/03/2010. Then on 04/1/2014  opposite party No.1 has sent a letter   to Smt.Sudha.K, intimating that the cheque was not intended to be delivered to her but the postal authorities by mistake wrongly delivered the article to her and therefore to remit the amount with interest before the office of this opposite party. But that letter was returned as unclaimed.  The cheque was sent by opposite party No.1 in the correct address of the complainant / policy holder. But the 2^nd opposite party, the  postal authorities have delivered the article to the wrong addressee without proper enquiry. If the 2^nd opposite party was diligent they could have easily seen the difference in the initials and house names. The 2^nd opposite party has committed deficiency  in service. The delivery of registered  article to a wrong addressee amounts to deficiency  of service. Opposite party No.1  has got high trust and expectation in the 2^nd opposite party, since they have sanction of law in their network. Thousand of valuable registered articles of Opposite party No.1 are being entrusted in the said trust. The 2^nd opposite party has miserably failed to upload the same and failed to render proper service.

The 3^rd opposite party has permitted encashment of the account payee crossed cheque issued in favour of Sudha.K.R. through the account of Sudha.K. The 3^rd opposite party ought to have verified the payee’s name in the cheque. The cheque in the name of sudha.K.R. was credited and encashed through the account of Sudha.K. If the 3^rd opposite party had properly verified the drawee’s name the cheque would not have been encashed. There was willful default and negligence on the part of the 3^rd opposite party and thereby committed deficiency of service.

Opposite party No.1 has rendered proper service and there is no deficiency of service on their part.  

2^nd opposite party filed version contending the following. The complaint is not sustainable and barred by limitation of time. Preservation period of documents pertaining to the delivery of Registered letters at a Branch Post office is two years.  Hence no departmental records are available with the 2^nd opposite party. 1^st opposite party  requested the 2^nd opposite party to intimate the address of the person to whom the letter under complaint had been delivered. Enquiry conducted by the 2^nd opposite party revealed that the correct postal address of the complainant is Sudha, Sarovaram, Karippottil House, Vadanamkurissi Post. She used to receive her postal articles under this postal address. One more person named Sudha, Karippottil house, Vadanamkurissi is also residing there and she used to receive the postal articles in the said address. Due to the same reason the Registered letter under complaint was delivered to the second addressee on 27/03/2010.  There wasn’t any deficiency of service on the part of the second opposite party.

3^rd opposite party filed version contending the following:

3^rd opposite party came to know about the incident with respect to the cheque bearing No.10066404 dated 23/2/2010 for an amount of Rs.15,000/- from the letter dated 10/12/2013 sent by the 1^st opposite party.  After receiving the above letter 3^rd opposite party  immediately enquired about the same without any delay and understood that one Sudha.K, W/o.Unnikrishnan, Meleppurath House, Vadanamkurissi Post having an account bearing No.30327963208 with this respondents bank, dropped the said cheque for clearance at State Bank of India, Pattambi branch and the same was presented for collection through the clearing house to Federal bank,  Pattambi Branch on 30/03/2010 and being credited to the account bearing No.30327963208 maintained by the said Sudha.K. On enquiry conducted from the part of 3^rd opposite party  it is revealed that one of the account holder of 3^rd opposite party  bank namely Sudha.K has dropped the said cheque at State Bank of India, Pattambi branch and sent the same to Federal Bank, Pattambi branch where the cheque is drawn. The cheque was honoured and amount credited in Sudha.K’s account. 3^rd opposite party  came to know all these transactions only when the first opposite party intimated the same.

The said cheque was dropped at State Bank of India, Pattambi Branch for collection and not at the 3^rd opposite party’s bank and 3^rd opposite party  has no direct knowledge and involvement in the above matter. Sudha.K account holder of 3^rd opposite party  bank, intentionally dropped the cheque at State Bank of India, Pattambi Branch for collection instead of 3^rd  opposite party  bank with an ulterior motive to avoid the chance of detection of difference in the initial of the customer and thereby cleared the cheque. There is no justification for blaming 3^rd opposite party  for the above incident and 3^rd opposite party has no responsibility for the same.

After that 3^rd opposite party received a letter dated 28/5/2014 from the first opposite party  requesting to pay back the amount covered by the cheque. 3^rd opposite party without any delay made an enquiry with the Federal Bank, Pattambi branch where the said cheque was presented for encashment and obtained a copy of the said cheque from the Federal bank, Pattambi branch. After the perusal of the copy of the cheque the mistake was detected and 3^rd opposite party  immediately  contacted Sudha.K and she agreed to repay the said amount and the same was conveyed  to the 1^st opposite party.  3^rd opposite party  made a recovery of the said amount of Rs.15,000/- covered by the said cheque from Sudha.K and issued a demand draft dated 10/6/2014 for the same in favour of the Chief Manager, LIC of India, Ottapalam and sent the same to the 1^st opposite party through registered post and the 1^st opposite party received the same. 3^rd opposite party  made all the possible efforts to recover the amount from Sudha.K in order to make good the loss to the complainant   thereby done efficient service to her.  

3^rd opposite party  is an unnecessary party to this proceedings since 3^rd opposite party  has no role as well as no direct or indirect involvement in the above said incident.  3^rd opposite party  could not  detect the mistake since the said cheque was dropped at another branch for collection and there is no justification for blaming 3^rd opposite party for the same.

4^th opposite party filed version contending the following:

4^th opposite party  has no direct knowledge or involvement in the incident described in the complaint.   4^th opposite party  bank neither know the whereabouts of Sudha.K, who is the account holder of 3^rd opposite party bank nor aware of the transactions entered into. Role  of 4^th opposite party was only to sent the cheque to the Federal bank for clearance since it was dropped at 4^th opposite party  bank.  After receiving the complaint an enquiry had been made   and it  is revealed that one Sudha.K W/o.Unnikrishnan, Meleppurath House, Vadanamkurissi Post, holder of account bearing No.30327963208 with the State Bank of India, Ongallur branch, the 3^rd opposite party in  the instant case dropped the said cheque for clearance at 4^th opposite party  bank and the same was sent by 4^th opposite party bank for collection through the clearing  house to Federal bank, Pattambi branch where the cheque is drawn.

The said cheque was dropped at 4^th opposite party  bank for collection by Sudha.K account holder of 3^rd respondents bank with an ulterior motive to avoid the chance of detection of difference in the initial of the customer and thereby cleared the cheque. 4^th opposite party  was not aware of the trap made by Sudha.K and ignorant as to where she holds the account. Moreover 4^th opposite party  is an unwanted party to this proceedings.

The evidence adduced by the parties consists of their respective chief affidavits. Ext.A1 to A15 marked on the side of complainant. Complainant was cross examined as PW1. Ext.B1 to B13 marked on the side of opposite parties.

Now the issues that arise for consideration are

1. Whether the complaint is barred by limitation ?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party ?
3.   Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd  opposite party ?
4. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of 3,4 & 5^th  opposite parties ?
5. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of 6^th  opposite party ?
6. If so, what is the relief and cost complainant is entitled to ?

Issue No.1

It is an admitted case that complainant  has taken a money back LIC policy from 1^st opposite party and the 1^st survival benefit is due on 23/03/2010. On the same day the cheque was drawn and sent to the customer. The said cheque was encashed on 30/03/2010 itself. According to 1^st opposite party, complainant has sent letter dated 15/9/2011 i.e. after a period of 1 ½ years stating that she has not received the amount. On perusing Ext.A1 the complaint dated 15/09/2011, it is understood that prior to this letter complainant has raised the issue before 1^st opposite party several times. The relevant portion is reproduced below:

എന്‌ടെ പോളിസി  നം  775298550 ആയ  എനിയ്ക്ക്  23/  10 / 2010 ന്  ലഭിയ്ക്കേ ണ്ടിയിരുന്ന 15,000/ രൂപ ഇതുവരെയും  ലഭിക്കാത്തതിനാലൽ  ഞാന്  ഇതിനു മുമ്പ്  ഒരു പരാതി തന്നിരുന്നു.  എന്നാൽ തുടര്ന്നുണ്ടായ അന്വേഷണത്തിൽ എനിയ്ക്ക് ചെക്ക്  അയച്ചതായി അറിയാന  കഴിഞ്ഞു . എന്നാൽ എനിയ്ക്ക് ഇതുവരെയും ചെക്ക്  ലഭിച്ചിട്ടില്ല. വീണ്ടും   അന്വേഷിച്ചപോൽ ചെക്ക് മറ്റാരോ വ്യാജരേഖ കാട്ടി പണം കൈപ്പറ്റിയതായി അറിയുന്നു.

According to 1^st opposite party, thereafter there was no correspondence by the complainant. Ext.A5 letter dated 29/11/2011 shows that the complainant has further sent compliant to 1^st opposite party for taking necessary steps for realization of the amount. According to complainant  thereafter also she has approached 1^st opposite party several times. All the time opposite party assured to do the needful. In Ext.A10 the letter issued by LIC to complainant dated 4/01/2013 reveals the fact that the LIC itself has understood that the cheque was honoured by wrong addressee in the year 2013 only. Further in the said letter complainant was given an impression that the steps will be taken by 1^st opposite party to settle the grievance. The relevant portion of Ext.A10 is noted below:

“It is informed  by SBI, Ongallur that  the cheque was encashed through A/c.No.30327963208. The address of the account holder is different  from your address.  We are sending  letter  to the person who had encashed   the cheque  today.  All the papers regarding the case is forwarded to our legal department at Divisional Office, Thrissur.  We will be taking  further action  according to their advice under intimation to you.”

Since no steps was taken by 1^st opposite party the present complaint was filed on 22/05/2014. We are of the view that complaint is filed within the period of limitation. 1^st issue answered in favour of the complainant.

Issue No.2

It is true that 1^st opposite party has sent cheque without any delay to the complainant, but considering the fact that it is a valuable document, 1^st opposite party ought to have insured the same so as to avoid any loss to their valuable customer. 1^st opposite party cannot absolve their liability stating that it is not their usual practice. Further once 1^st opposite party  has understood that the cheque was honoured by the wrong addressee they would have settled the matter with the complainant and further proceed against the other opposite parties for realization of the amount. Certainly LIC is a trusted institution by the common man and their treatment towards the customers should be in pace with  their expectation. As per Ext.A5  and Ext.A10              1^st opposite party has understood that the cheque was given to a wrong addressee and honoured by the wrong addressee.  Thereafter also 1^st opposite party made the complainant to run from pillar to post for settling the issue. All these acts clearly establishes the deficiency in service on the part of 1^st opposite party.

Issue No.3

2^nd opposite party admits receipt of the disputed registered letter. According to 1^st opposite party the letter addressed to the complainant was delivered to 6^th opposite party due to the similarity  in the house names of both parties. The said contention is devoid of any merits because address of complainant is Sudha.K.R. W/o.T.P.Satheeshkumar, Karippottil House,Vadanakurissi Post, Ottapalam Taluk,Palakkad – 679124 and the address of the  6^th opposite party is Sudha.K, W/o.Unnikrishnan, Melepurath House,Vadanamkurissi Post,Shoranur Via. No documentary evidence  was adduced by 2^nd opposite party. 2^nd opposite party while delivering a registered letter  ought to have acted in a more responsible manner. Consumer Protection Act defines deficiency as follows:

Deficiency means  any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained  by or under any law for the time being  in force or has been undertaken  to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.

The mistakes and deficiency in service committed by 2^nd opposite party has led to a series of mistakes committed by other opposite parties. Hence we find 2^nd opposite party deficient in their service.

Issue 4

It is admitted fact that the cheque was dropped with 4^th opposite party and the same was sent for clearance by 4^th opposite party and amount credited to the account of Sudha.K by 5^th opposite party. We find that 3^rd opposite party has no opportunity  to have a look at the disputed cheque, 3^rd opposite party has no connection with any of the dealings of the 6^th opposite party with opposite parties 4 & 5. 3^rd opposite party has only encashed the amount in the credit of 6^th opposite party. Hence we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of 3^rd opposite party.

The cheque marked as Ext.B10 shows that it is an account payee cheque  issued in the name of Sudha.K.R. 4^th opposite party without thoroughly verifying the difference in intimation sent the cheque for collection to 5^th opposite party bank. 4^th opposite party has contended that they were not aware of   the trap made by 6^th opposite party. 4^th opposite party ought to have acted in a more reasonable manner.    5^th opposite party also failed to detect the difference in initials, cleared the cheque thereby made opportunity to a wrong person to withdraw the amount and made loss to the complainant herein. We find opposite parties 4 & 5 deficient in their service.

Issue No.5

 There is no consumer relation between the complainant and 6^th opposite party. 6^th opposite party committed a fraudulent transaction. The said dispute will not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. Hence we are not in a position to fasten any liability upon 6^th opposite party.

Issue No.6

The evidence on record clearly establishes the deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties 1,2,4 & 5. 3^rd opposite party has made recovery of the amount from 6^th opposite party and the same was paid to 1^st opposite party who in turn credited the same to complainant account. Hence the only point to be decided is the quantum  of  compensation. Complainant was made to run from pillar to post for approximately 4 years. Only after filing of the case, the amount was credited to the complainant’s account. We are of the view that each opposite parties are liable to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant.

In view of the above discussion, complaint partly allowed and we order the following.

1. 1^st opposite party is directed to pay  an amount of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant.
2. 2^nd opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant.
3. 4^th opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant.
4. 5^th opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant.
5. 3^rd & 6^th opposite parties are exonerated from any liability towards the complainant.
6. Total cost of Rs.2,000/- shall be paid by 1^st, 2^nd, 4^th and 5^th opposite parties.

Order shall be complied within a period of one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on this the 15^th  day of December   2014. 

                                                                                           Sd/-

  Seena H

  President 

       Sd/-

  Suma.K.P

  Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the on the  side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Photocopy of  Letter dated 15/9/11 sent to the opposite party by the

            complainant

Ext.A2 – Photocopy of reply  to the notice 

Ext.A3 – Photocopy of reply letter sent by 2^nd opposite party  to 1^st opposite

             party

Ext.A4  – Photocopy of reply letter sent by 2^nd opposite party to 1^st opposite

              party.

Ext.A5 – Photocopy of complaint letter sent by complainant to the 1^st opposite

             party dated 29/11/11

Ext.A6 – Photocopy of application dated 18/2/2014 sent to Superintendent of

             Post Office, Ottapalam Division

Ext.A7 -  Photocopy of reply letter dated 3/3/32014 sent to the complainant by 

             Superintendent of Post Office, Ottapalam Division

Ext.A8 – Photocopy of application sent to Post Master General, Northern

               Region, Calicut.

Ext.A9 -  Photocopy of reply letter sent by Post Master General, Northern

              Region, Calicut to the complainant dtd.26/3/2014..

Ext.A10 – Photocopy of letter sent to the complainant Chief Manager, LIC dated

              4/1/2013

Ext.A11 –Photocopy of Statement of Account No.30327963208

Ext.A12 – Photocopy of Statement of Account of LIC

Ext.A13 – Photocopy of letter sent by 3^rd opposite party to 1^st opposite party

              dated 2/1/2014.

Ext.A14 – Photocopy of letter sent by complainant to the Divisional Manager,

               LIC dated 29/4/2013.

Ext.A15 – Photocopy of  letter issued by 1^st opposite party to SBI, Pattambi

               branch dtd.27/11/13.

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Ext.B1 –Copy of the complaint letter dated 15/9/11

Ext.B2 – Copy of the letter by the 1^st opposite party to the 2^nd opposite party

            dated 30/9/11

Ext.B3 – Copy of reply letter from 2^nd opposite party to the 1^st opposite party

            17/10/11

Ext.B4 – Copy of letter sent to the complainant by 1^st opposite party             

Ext.B5 – Copy of bank statement from Federal Bank for the period from

            1/3/2010 to 31/3/2010.

Ext.B6 – Copy of letter from 3^rd opposite party to 1^st opposite party dated

            5/6/14

Ext.B7 – Copy of NEFT voucher for Rs.15,000/- to the complainant  

Ext.B8 – Copy of the letter dated 16/6/2014 sent to the complainant by the 1^st

             opposite party

Ext.B9 – Copy of LIC Policy.

Ext.B10 – Copy of Cheque  for Rs.15,000/-  drawn in favour of Sudha.K.R

Ext.B11 –Copy of letter sent by 3^rd opposite party to the Chief Manager, LIC of

              India, Ottapalam dated 10/6/14

Ext.B12 – Copy of demand draft for an amount of Rs.15,000/- issued by bank in

             favour of LIC dtd.10/6/14

Ext.B13 – Copy of letter sent by Chief Manager, LIC of India, Ottapalam to the

              Bank.

Witness examined on the side of complainant

PW1 – Satheeshkumar.T.P

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Cost allowed

Rs.2,000/- allowed as cost of the proceedings.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent