DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.591/09
Shri Bhuteshwer Singh
S/o Shri Dharmender Singh
Lawyers’Chambers No. 121
Delhi High Court
New Delhi-110003. …Complainant
Versus
UCO Bank
Through Assistant General MManager
Delhi High Court Branch
Sher Shah Road
New Delhi-110003. ...Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 27.07.2009
Date of Order : 17.06.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Shri U.K.Tyagi
Complainant has requested to pass an award for the sum of Rs. 2,64,500/- alongwith interest @ of 18% p.a. from the date of 22.5.2009 till the date of payment and also to allow the payment as determined by this Commission as compensation towards mental agony and harassment etc.
The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The complainant is holding S/B Account for the last 20 years with UCO Bank (hereinafter referred to as OP). It is averred that the complainant issued a crossed cheque No.465885 in favour of Reliance General Insurance Co. on 2.3.2009 for Rs.2953/-. A photocopy of the updated pass book is annexed herewith as Annexure C-1. On 6th March, 2009, the complainant deposited a cheque No.662948 dated 5.3.2009 for Rs.3,500 /- drawn on ICICI Bank with the OP Bank. On 7th March, the OP Bank credited the said amount in his S/B Account. Entry to the effect was also made and his S/B Account was showing balance to the tune of Rs.7874/80. On 18.4.2009, the complainant received a letter from Reliance General Insurance Co. informing that the cheque issued towards his medical policy premium had been dishonoured due to “Insufficient funds” and said policy has been cancelled. A copy of the said letter is annexed as annexure C-2. It would be seen from the pass-book of the complainant in respect of said S/B Account that the entries made on 9.3.2009, the balance was 3820/80 but the bank at its own withdrew an amount of Rs.3,500/- from his account and made the entries as “outward rejects”. It is further averred that had the OP Bank not withdrawn this amount of Rs.3,500/- or any intimation about the rejection of his cheque drawn ICICI Bank, the cheque issued towards premium of Insurance Co. would not have been dishonoured. It clearly shows deficiency of service by the bank and as a result of which, the complainant had to suffer mental agony and subjected to humiliation. As Insurance Co. cancelled his policy in the absence of premium for renewal of the policy, he had to pay considerable amount when his wife fell ill in the ensuring months.
On the other hand, the OP-Bank stated that the policy of the complainant was already cancelled as would be seen from the perusal of the letter dated 16.4.2009. It is further submitted that cheque of Rs.3,500/- deposited by the complainant returned by the drawer bank unpaid and resultantly, the said amount of Rs.3,500/- was debited into the account of complainant and OP-Bank is under no obligation to inform the complainant A/c Holder either personally or on phone in case of dishonoured the cheque. Since the cheque deposited by the complainant was dishonoured, the OP – Bank has no option but to debit the said amount from the account of the complainant. It was also contended that the complainant is supposed to have full knowledge about the balance in his account.
Both the parties have filed written submissions and evidence by way of affidavit. Written statement is on record so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
This Commission has looked into the material placed on record and also given thoughtful consideration to the oral arguments made before us. The whole contention of the complainant is rejection of the cheque issued in favour of the Insurance Company for extending the medi claim policy which started w.e.f. 3.03.2008 was expiring on 2.3.2009. As contended by the complainant that the cheque drawn on ICICI Bank, was credited on 7.3.2009 so he had sufficient fund and issued another cheque for Rs.2,953/- towards premium of the renewal of policy starting w.e.f. 3.3.2009 to 2.3.2010. The cheque under reference for this premium of the medi-claim policy was returned on 12.3.2009 by the OP-Bank whereas it bears the date of 2.3.2009. It was not mentioned by the Insurance Company when the said cheque was presented in the OP Bank. From the perusal of the medi claim policy to be started from 3.3.2009, it is clearly mentioned that “Policy would be considered as a fresh policy if there would be break of seven or more days between the previous policy expiry date and current policy start date”. Perusal of said policy guidelines goes to show that the continuation of earlier policy could have survived if the premium could have been deposited by 9.3.2009 otherwise the policy would have been considered afresh. It is clear that had the amount of premium would have been deposited later on, a fresh policy could have continued. But the complainant did not bother to have fresh policy in case of discontinuation of this policy. And the risk would have been taken care of. As such, the sought for on account of failure of the timely deposition of premium amount is totally unjustified. It is apparent that the complainant has not led any evidence to this effect that the said cheque of premium was presented in the OP Bank well before crucial date of 9.3.2009. It is also noticed that the bounced cheque was returned by OP-bank on 12.3.2009. Thereafter, the insurance company intimated the complainant on 18.4.2009 vide its letter dated 16.4.2009.
Hence there is no conclusive proof when the cheque was presented by the Insurance Company to the OP Bank.
As regards to deposition of cheque for Rs.3500/- drawn on ICICI Bank. It is not understood and no specific reply by the OP Bank was given as to why the amount for said cheque was credited into his account before the clearance of said cheque from the ICICI Bank. No intimation was given to the complainant by OP-Bank in case of its failure of clearance from ICICI Bank. However, the OP-Bank has maintained that they are not under obligation to inform the customer in such circumstances. However, the complainant had not led any evidence to show that OP Bank was under obligation to inform him about the bouncing of his cheque. The complainant, all through maintained that had the OP Bank informed him about it, he would not have allowed his premium cheque dishonoured. But, as discussed about, there appear very little chances to save his continuation of the earlier policy.
In view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances in the case, this Commission feels that OP-Bank should have informed the complainant about the failure of clearance of cheque from ICICI Bank. To that extent, the OP Bank can be held liable and deficiency in service can be assigned. Hence, in view of this, the OP is directed to pay to the complainant Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the prayer mentioned in para 9 at (a), (c) & (d). Request for medical insurance is found devoid of merit. The amount should be paid within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the rate of interest shall be levied @ 9% p.a. till its realisation.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
