BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint No.151/2017.
Date of instt.:02.06.2017.
Date of Decision:16.10.2018.
Mahender Singh s/o Shri Ram Saroop, Chahal Patti village Kurar, Tehsil Kalayat, District Kaithal. ……….Complainant.
Versus
- Manager of Corporation Bank Railway Road, Kalayat through its Branch Kalayat.
- National Insurance Company Ltd. TMPL Nodal Office, Secunderabad DO IV, FNO.17, 18 & 19, 1st Floor Minerva Complex, S.D. Road, Secunderbad-500003, Telangna.
.……..Opposite Parties
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Shri Jagmal Singh, President.
Shri Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Suman Rana, Member.
Present: Shri S.B. Panchal, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Sudeep Malik, Adv. for OP No.1.
Shri M.R. Miglani, Adv. for OP No.2.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT)
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is having an account No.SB/01/000057 with OP No.1. It is further alleged that OP No.1 issued a cheque book to him for his use and he has a sufficient amount in his account regularly. It is further alleged that he is registered owner of vehicle bearing No.HR08-9852 and having insurance policy of said vehicle upto 24.11.2016. It is further alleged that he issued a cheque No.302991 of Rs.16486/- on 24.11.2016 drawn on 01.12.2016 of Corporation Bank description of risks Motor Package Policy cover Note No.55270031166160112695 and get the policy renewal which was 25.11.2016 to 24.11.2017 issued on 24.11.2016 in his name. It is further alleged that on 23.1.2017, his vehicle caused damaged/accident when a cow had come on the road and to save the cow his vehicle was uncontrolled and strike a tree. It is further alleged that OP No.2 sent a letter dt. 11.1.2017 which was received to him on 06.2.2017 in which insurance company refused to repaid his amount saying that your cheque is dishonoured. It is further alleged that on 24.11.2016, when he issued cheque in the name of OP No.2, then there was sufficient amount in his account, so dishonour of cheque is negligence of OP No.1 and wrongly cancelled the policy by OP No.2. This way, the OPs are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite party No.1 appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability and cause of action. It is further submitted that on 24.11.2016, the balance in the account of complainant was not sufficient as there was a sum of Rs.1841.91 in aforesaid account, thus the cheque was rightly dishonoured, however, due to oversight and workload, the memo was issued with the remarks “cheque not issued” instead of signature differ/insufficient balance; that the cheque in question was rightly dishonoured due to difference of signature/insufficient balance; that the complainant himself made the ATM withdrawals several times and each and every time the message showing the balance in account was sent to his registered mobile number, thus the complainant was fully aware about the fact that the cheque amount has not been debited in his account; that the complainant himself signed the cheque with wrong signatures since he was not having sufficient balance in his account on 24.11.2016. On merits, the rest of contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same.
Upon notice, the opposite party No.2 also appeared before this forum and filed reply raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability; locus standi and jurisdiction. It is further submitted that the complainant got insured his vehicle from branch office, Secundarabad (Telanga) and at the time of purchasing the policy, the complainant paid premium through cheque No.302991 dt. 24.11.16 drawn upon 01.12.16 at Corporation Bank; that the answering OP issued policy subject to encashment of cheque; that the answering OP submitted cheque through his banker for encashment which was returned by the banker of complainant uncashed, so there is no deficiency on the part of answering OP. On merits, the rest of contents of the complaint are denied and prayed for dismissal the same.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A; documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C6 and closed the evidence on 17.10.17. On the other hand, OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A; documents Ex.R2 to Ex.R5 and closed the evidence on 08.1.2018. OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW2/A; document Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 08.1.2018.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is not disputed between the parties that the complainant is having an account No.SB/01/000057 with OP No.1. It is also not disputed that the complainant is registered owner of vehicle TATA Zest XE QJT 75PS bearing No.HR08-9852 and having insurance policy of said vehicle upto 24.11.2016. It is also not disputed that the complainant issued a cheque bearing No.302991 for Rs.16486/- on 24.11.2016 of Corporation Bank to get the policy renewal bearing cover Note No.55270031166160112695 w.e.f. 25.11.2016 to 24.11.2017 issued on 24.11.2016 in the name of complainant Ex.C3.
6. The complainant alleged that on 23.1.2017, the said vehicle caused damaged/accident. He further alleged that OP No.2 sent a letter dt. 11.1.2017 which was received to him on 06.2.2017 in which insurance company refused to repaid his amount saying that your cheque is dishonoured. He further alleged that on 24.11.2016, when he issued cheque in the name of OP No.2, then there was sufficient amount in his account, so dishonour of cheque is negligence of OP No.1 and wrongly cancelled the policy by OP No.2.
7. On the other hand, it is contended by the OP No.1 that on 24.11.2016, the balance in the account of complainant was not sufficient as there was a sum of Rs.1841.91 in aforesaid account, thus the cheque was rightly dishonoured. He further contended that due to oversight and workload, the memo was issued with the remarks “cheque not issued” instead of signature differ/insufficient balance. It is contended by OP No.2 that the complainant got insured his vehicle and at the time of purchasing the policy, the complainant paid premium through cheque No.302991 dt. 24.11.16 drawn upon 01.12.16 at Corporation Bank and the answering OP issued policy subject to encashment of cheque. He further contended that the answering OP submitted cheque through his banker for encashment which was returned by the banker of complainant uncashed. He further contended that as the cheque was not encashed and was dishonoured, therefore, the OP No.2 wrote a letter dt. 11.1.2017 EX.R1 to the complainant stating therein that the cheque had been returned unpaid, so the policy cover receipt No.55270031166160112695 dt. 14.12.2016 was cancelled and the company was not risk under the above said policy cover. He further argued that the complainant produced a copy of bill dt. 31.1.2017 as Ex.C4 and in this document, wherein, the Job No.4654 is dated 18.1.2017, which is before the date of accident. He further argued that how it is possible that the job was done on 18.1.2017 for the accident which was allegedly taken place on 23.1.2017. So there is no deficiency on the part of answering OP No.2.
8. To support his contentions, OP No.1 produced statement of account of the complainant Ex.R2 and perusal of said statement it is found that on 24.11.2016, when the complainant issued the cheque in question in favour of OP No.2, there was a balance of only Rs.1841.91 in his account. The OP No.1 further produced document Ex.R5, wherein, at Sr.No.6 dt. 01.12.2016, wherein, beside mentioning the particulars of the cheque in question, it is also mentioned that “Chq. Not issued”, which was corrected after encircling the same and remarked as “signature differ”. From this document, it has become clear that the cheque in question issued by the complainant was dishonoured.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that the OP No.2 wrote a letter dt. 11.1.2017 to the complainant vide which they informed the complainant that cheque No.302991 dt. 24.11.2016 has been returned unpaid by the banker, so the Receipt No.55270031166160112695 dt. 14.12.2016 for Rs.16,486/- stands cancelled and the company was not risk under the above said policy/cover note. This fact is clear from Ex.C5 as well as from Ex.R1. The said letter was written by the OP No.2 on 11.1.2017 and as per the complainant, the vehicle in question was met with an accident on 23.1.2017. Therefore, the OP No.2 has cancelled the insurance cover note much before the date of accident. To support his contention, the OP No.2 produced case law cited in 2009 (1) CPC, Page No.559 titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sudhir Kumar Wadhwa & Anr., decided by the Hon’ble National Commission, New Delhi, wherein, it is held that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Sections 14 & 21 (b) – Insurance premium – Cheque issued for payment of premium amount was dishonoured due to insufficient money in account of insured- Complaint dismissed by District Forum but allowed in appeal – Revision filed- As petitioner had failed to keep adequate amount in the account, his negligence was the result of dishonour of cheque – Order of State Commission not sustainable- Order passed by the District Forum restored- Revision allowed.
10. We found force in the contention of the OP No.2 that the bill Ex.C4, which is regarding the vehicle in question bearing No.HR83-9852, clearly shows that the job date was 18.1.2017 and the accident was allegedly taken place on 23.1.2017, which is not possible. The bill Ex.C4 dt. 31.1.2017 clearly shows that that the Job Number is 4654 and the job date is 18.1.2017. The complainant alleged that the accident had taken place on 23.1.2017. So, it is not possible that the damage caused to the vehicle in question in accident on 23.1.2017 can be got jobbed on 18.1.2017. The complainant alleged that he had received a letter dt. 11.1.2017 on 06.2.2017, but the complainant has not produced any evidence regarding the same. Moreover, there was sufficient time between the date of cancellation and the date of accident. The authority produced by the OP No.2 is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the complainant failed to prove any deficiency on the part of the OPs.
11. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we find no merit in the present complaint and accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.16.10.2018.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Suman Rana). (Rajbir Singh).
Member. Member.
Present: Shri S.B. Panchal, Adv. for the complainant.
Shri Sudeep Malik, Adv. for OP No.1.
Shri M.R. Miglani, Adv. for OP No.2.
Remaining arguments heard. Order pronounced, vide our separate order in detail of even dated, the present complaint is dismissed. File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.
Dated:16.10.2018. Member. Member. President.
