BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.85/2008 Order dated this the 18th day of November 2008 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.P.N.Padmanabha S/o Lingegowda, R/o Pannedoddi, Maddur Taluk, Mandya District. (By Sri.K.M.Mahesha., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S The Manager, Vijaya Bank, Opp. Mahaveera Talkies, Pete Beedi, Maddur, Mandya District. (By Sri.H.Madegowda., Advocate) Date of complaint 25.08.2008 Date of service of notice to Opposite party 08.09.2008 Date of order 18.11.2008 Total Period 2 Months & 10 Days Result The complaint is dismissed. However, the Opposite party is directed to refund D.D. amount of Rs.350/-, if the complainant presents the D.D. Ex.C.1. There is no order as to cost in the circumstances of the case. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed against the Opposite party seeing compensation of Rs.4,50,000/-, D.D. amount of Rs.350/- with service charge and penalty amount of Rs.1,000/- paid by the complainant and commission amount of Rs.25,000/- alleging deficiency in service. 2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was working as a agent of LIC, Maddur Branch from 28.06.1993, that for the renewal of the agency the complainant purchased the D.D. for Rs.350/- on 26.05.2008 by paying service charges from the Opposite party Bank in favour of LIC of India under D.D. No.614482317 that he submitted the said D.D. to the Maddur Branch of LIC who in turn sent to the said D.D. to Divisional Office of LIC at Mysore and the said D.D. issued by the Opposite party was dis-honoured on the ground of not bearing the micro number. The said D.D. was sent from Mysore to Maddur Branch. As the last date for the renewal of agency was 31.05.2008 and the D.D. issued by the Opposite party was not bearing micro number and not encashed in time, the agency of the complainant was not renewed, on the ground of non-payment of the fees and hence his agency was cancelled. The complainant has earned good name in obtaining LIC policies and getting more commission and on account of cancellation of agency, he could not get the new policies and could not renew the old policy and he could not get commission amount from the earlier policies and he was getting average of Rs.25,000/- as commission per month by selling the new policies and renewal of the policies. Again the complainant submitted application for agency by paying penalty of Rs.1,000/- as per direction of the board and so for his agency was not sanctioned. Therefore, due to the dereliction of duty of the Opposite party by not issuing proper D.D., the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service and the complainant has sustained loss financially and mentally. In spite of the legal notice dated 28.06.2008, the Opposite party has not sent any reply. Therefore, the Opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- with D.D. amount and other relief. 3. The Opposite party has filed version admitting that the complainant has purchased a D.D. for Rs.350/- on 26.05.2008 in favour of LIC of India. But it is not known for what purpose the D.D. was purchased by the complainant. It is denied that the D.D. was sent to the Divisional Office, Mysore and D.D. was not accepted for not mentioning micro number and said D.D. was returned to Maddur Branch Office. The other allegations are denied. The Opposite party Bank has issued several D.D. on 26.05.2008 in favour of so many persons, institutions, authorities including the LIC of India. The form of D.D. is supplied by the Head Office. In some D.D. books, micro number is mentioned and in some books micro number is not printed. Mentioning of the micro number to all the D.D. is neither obligatory nor mandatory. All the D.D. issued by the Opposite party Bank on 26.05.2008 without mentioning the micro number have been accepted and honoured. On the very day some D.D. issued in favour of LIC of India were accepted and honoured. As a matter of fact, the very D.D. purchased by the complainant was re-produced to the Opposite party and encashed the D.D. at that time also, he did not say anything. Probably, it appears that the complainant might have not at all placed the D.D. before the LIC of India. Nobody returns the D.D. without presenting the same for encashment. Therefore, the complainant has created a story in order to claim illegally if possible. The Opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service and has not committed any negligence and there is no error on the part of the Opposite party in issuing D.D. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. During trail, the Complainant is examined and he has produced documents Ex.C.1 to C.5. The Opposite party is examined and it produced documents Ex.R.1 to R.17. 5. We have heard both sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1) Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency of service by issuing improper D.D? 2) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to the compensation? 3) Whether the complainant is entitled to refund of the D.D. amount? 4) What order? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. POINT NO.1:- The undisputed facts are that the complainant purchased D.D. bearing No.614482317 for Rs.350/- from the Opposite party Bank on 26.05.2008 payable to LIC of India by paying service charges. The complainant has produced Ex.C.1, the D.D. According to the complainant since he was the agent of the LIC of India, for renewal every year, as usual, he purchased this D.D. and submitted to Maddur Branch and they sent to Divisional Office, LIC and the D.D. issued by the Opposite party had been rejected without encashment and the said D.D. was sent back to Maddur Branch and further alleged that since the last date for renewal of agency was 31.05.2008 on account of non-encashment of the D.D. in time, the agency of the complainant was cancelled. Therefore, the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 9. But, the contention of the Opposite party is that on 26.05.2008 apart from the complainant, the Opposite party Bank issued several D.Ds. in favour of so many persons, institutions, authorities including LIC of India, some D.D. books contain micro number and in some books micro number is not printed. Mentioning of the micro number to all the D.D. is neither obligatory nor mandatory. The Opposite party has produced Ex.R.1 to R.17 the office copy of the D.D and challans to show the issue of D.Ds on 26.05.2008 and Ex.R.3 relates to complainant. If we consider this office copy of the D.Ds. issued on 26.05.2008, they do not contain micro number at all. Of course while tearing the D.D. from the book, last printed line is torn both in Ex.R.3 and also the original Ex.C.1 and even the print of computer code is also torned and not in any other office copy of the D.Ds. The complainant has produced Ex.C.2 alleging his agency was terminated. Though, Ex.C.2 relates to the subject agent termination action, but it is not mentioned about the termination at all, because it is mentioned as decision pending Susp 5 (01.06.2008) in case of any discrepancy or query, please contact the office about the D.D. It cannot be accepted that Ex.C.2 is clear and specific that the agency of the complainant has been terminated. According to the complainant Ex.C.3 is very specific to show that the D.D. was not honoured as the draft purchased by the complainant from the Opposite party do not contain D.D. number and micro number as it is torned off. If we consider Ex.C.3 it appears that LIC of India, Maddur Branch has sent this reply to the complainant about the information for having returned the D.D. to the complainant. In this letter, it is mentioned that for license renewal D.D. bearing No.529775 dated 26.05.2008 was sent back and on demanding information by the complainant by his letter dated 03.07.2008 they informed by this letter Ex.C.3, that the Divisional office has returned the D.D. stating that the D.D. is torned in the lower part which does not disclose D.D. number and micro number and therefore another D.D. was sought from the complainant. 10. As contended by the Opposite party even though the lower side of the D.D. is torned off, but in Ex.C.1 the D.D. number is available and there is no necessity of bearing the micro number. Even though, every D.D. has column of computer code, but Ex.R.1 to R.17 do not contain any number at all in that column. The D.D. bears serial number and there is no separate D.D. number as contended by the Opposite party. The number 614482317 refers to the drawee branch, i.e., the bank which issued the D.D. and it is not a D.D. number at all. Further, it is doubtful whether this D.D. Ex.C.1 was submitted by the complainant to the LIC Office, because in Ex.C.3, the D.D. number is mentioned as 529775. We do not find this number in Ex.C.1 at all. Further, there is no evidence that the D.D. Ex.C.1 issued by the Opposite party was presented by the Divisional Office, Mysore to Vijay Bank and the D.D. was dis-honoured on account of tearing of some lower portion of the D.D. It cannot be understood as to why the LIC Branch Office returned the D.D. mentioning in Ex.C.3, on the ground that the portion contain D.Ds. number and micro number is torned off, without presenting to the bank. If actually D.D. purchased by the complainant from the Opposite party was presented by the LIC of India and the Vijaya Bank at Mysore had dis-honoured the D.D. on the ground that it was torned off or it does not contain the micro number, then we could have attributed the negligence and deficiency in service against the Opposite party Bank. The complainant has not produced any document from the Divisional Office of LIC to show that the Vijaya Bank has dis-honoured the D.D. Ex.C.1 mentioning the ground. The complainant has not examined the official of the Divisional Office, Mysore to prove on what ground his agency was not renewed and the ground on which the D.D. was not encashed. 11. As per the complainants evidence by paying Rs.1,000/- as fine amount, he got renewed the agency and it took one month and during that period he sustained loss without getting any policies and the commission was not paid. The complainant has produced Ex.C.5 to show the amount insured through the agency of the complainant and the commission and the bonus received. During 2001 to 2008 there were 90 policies processed through him and the bonus commission and renewal commission is shown. Even though, the complainant has alleged loss of Rs.4,50,000/-, but in evidence the complainant has admitted during 2008 he got only 5 policies, further admitted that after renewal of the agency, he has received the commission amount for the policies made earlier. Further, he has deposed after renewal of agency in July 2008 up to November he has obtained only two policies. Therefore, when the complainant has not proved that the D.D. purchased by the complainant from the Opposite party as per Ex.C.1 was dis-honoured on some grounds and on that ground, his agency was not renewed for one month till providing another D.D. sought for and when the complainant has not proved on what specific ground his agency was not renewed for nearly one month, the complainant has failed to prove that he sustained loss due to the negligence or deficiency in service by the Opposite party. Therefore, the complainant has failed to prove his case against the Opposite party. 12. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is dismissed. However, the Opposite party is directed to refund D.D. amount of Rs.350/-, if the complainant presents the D.D. Ex.C.1. There is no order as to cost in the circumstances of the case. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 18th day of November 2008). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
