Date of filing: 10-1-2017 Date of Order :11-1-2018
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
THURSDAY THE 11TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2018
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 4 / 2017
Kamboji Mogalayee Setty,
S/o Kamboji Pakeeraiah,
Aged about 52 years, D. No.14/122,
Y.V. Street, Kadapa, Y.S.R. District.
Cell No.9866999163. … Complainant.
Vs.
- The Branch Manager,
Andhra bank, Near Sarada Nilayam School,
Mundy Bazaar, Kadapa.
- The Branch Manager,
United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
D.No.21/361, Dwaraka Towers,
7 Roads, Kadapa. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 3-1-2018 in the presence of Sri C.S. Riyazuddin, Advocate for Complainant, Sri A. Raja Reddy, Advocate, Kadapa for opposite party no.1, and Sri K. Rama Kondaiah, Advocate, Kadapa for opposite party no.2, and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following:-
O R D E R
(Per Sri V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite parties to pay Rs.17,066/- and interest Rs.127/- the policy amount paid by him to pay Rs.1,50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.5,000/-towards costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint which are in vernacular language (Telugu) are as follows:- The complainant obtained health insurance policy from opposite party no.2 on 22-9-2016 and paid total premium amount of Rs.17,066/- by issuing cheque bearing No.247545 drawn on Andhra Bank i.e., O.P.no.1. O.P.no.2 issued policy bond with policy No.0509042816 108240011. The complainant has savings account with first O.P. and his account no.is 17531010001015. The cheque issued in favour of O.P.no.2 for Rs.17,066/- towards the above policy premium has been debited to his account on 26-9-2016 by O.P.nop.1. But on 4-10-2016 he received letter from O.P.no.2 stating the policy has been cancelled as the cheque issued by him returned unpaid for the reason “funds insufficient” on 28-9-2016. But on the date of issuing cheque an amount of Rs.18,765/- was balance in his account and on 26-9-2016cheque amount of Rs.17,066/- was debited and cheque was passed. The complainant approached both the opposite parties several times but there was no proper response from them and was avoiding on one pretext or other. Then on 8-12-2016 complainant issued notice to opposite parties 1 and 2 and also Kotak Mahindra bank i.e., bank of O.P.2 send the cheque for collection. But there is no response from the opposite parties and Kotak Mahindra bank. On 22-12-2016 O.P.no.2 addressed letter stating that there was no balance in the account of complainant amount not credited to them, hence the policy was cancelled. Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and complainant suffered mentally and financially. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
3) O.P.s 1 & 2 filed separate written versions/Counters.
4) O.P.no.1 denied the allegations with regard to their deficiency of service as pleaded by the complainant. It is further averred complainant has opened S.B.A/c bearing No.17531010001015 and operating the same O.P.no.2 informed presenting the cheque bearing No.247545 for an amount of Rs.17066/- to their bank drawn on O.P.no.2 company towards the policy. O.P.no.2 maintains accounts with standard charted bank and Kotak Mahindra Bank for collection of cheques of the policy holders on 23-9-2016 the outsourcing agency of the standard charted bank took the cheque from the second opposite party bank and in turn the scanned copy of cheque was sent to Andhra Bank service clear centre, Chennai for collection of the proceeds through on line transaction but on that date the cheque was not encashed. However it was encashed on 26-9-2016 and to that effect the debit entry was passed in the S.B.A/c of the complainant as 24, 25th September, 2016 became holidays. The collected proceeds were sent to standard charted bank having got clearance of the cheque proceeds of the complainant and the other presented cheques proceeds by the standard charted bank from Andhra Bank service clear centre, Chennai to its account on 26-9-2016. The cheque proceeds of the complainant were estimated to the account of the second opposite party bank as a policy account of the complainant by the standard charted bank. It was remitted to the account of the second O.P. account as premium amount sent by the complainant on 8-11-2016, after a gap of 45 days by the standard charted bank, thus there is no delay or latches on the part of this O.P. The standard charted bank which collected amount not credited the same to the second O.Ps account. There was delay of 45 days which was confirmed by the standard charted bank, thus there is no deficiency in service on the part of O.P.no.1 and standard charted bank is responsible for the grievance of the complainant. Hence, O.P.no.1 is not liable to pay any amount and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5) O.P.no.2 filed counter denying the allegations of the complaint with regard to the deficiency in service causing mental agony and liable to pay the amounts as claimed and called upon the complainant to prove all of them.
6) It is further averred the Complainant obtained a family medicare policy from this O.P. and issued a cheque bearing No.247545 dated 21-9-2017 for rs.17,066/- drawn on O.P.no.1 for the premium amount of the above said policy and O.P.no.2 issued policy no. 0509042816 108240011.O.P.no.2 presented the said cheque through its account lying in Kotak Mahnidra Bank Ltd., Kadapa branch for encashment of the cheque, but the said cheque was returned unpaid for the reason “Funds Insufficient” in the complainants account vide cheque return memo dt. 28-9-2016. O.P.no.2 informed the same to the complainant by letter Dt. 4-10-2016 and also informed that the policy issued to him was cancelled on account of dis-honour of cheque issued by him and requested to return policy. Thus O.P.no.2 is no way concerned with the monetory transactions in the account of the complainant regarding his amount with O.P.no.1 of Rs.17,066/-. There is no deficiency of service or carelessness on the part of Opposite Party no.2. O.P.no.2 is not liable to pay the amounts as claimed by the complainant and complainant is not entitled for any reliefs and thus complaint is frivolous and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.
No oral evidence has been let in by the parties on behalf of the complainant, ex.A1 to Ex.A9 are marked and on behalf of the opposite party no.1 Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 are marked, and no documents are marked on behalf of O.P.no.2. Written arguments not filed by the parties. Heard arguments on both sides and perused the material placed on record.
7) The Points that arises for determination are :-
i) Is there any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties
as pleaded by complainant ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for
against opposite parties?
iii) To What relief ?
8) Learned counsel for complainant submits that opposite parties no.1 and 2 are shifting their responsibilities against each other with regard to deficiency of service but the fact of deficiency of service is proved by complainant on both opposite parties as the cheque issued by the complainant was encashed on 26-9-2016 as per the statement of account Ex.A1 and Ex.A9 but the same was not informed by O.P.no.1 to 2 and O.P.no.2 retaining the original cheque with them and send it subsequently for collection to Andhra bank by which time the amount of Rs.17066/- has been already credited to the account of O.P.no.2. But unjustly the policy was cancelled by O.P.no.2. So the complainant proved the deficiency in service on the part of both opposite parties by filing Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 and both the opposite parties are liable for the claims of complainant in toto.
9)Per contra learned counsel for O.P.no.1contended that there is no deficiency of service on the part of O.P.no.1, but it is the bank of O.P.no.2 who collected the amount remitted the same 45 days later, though the cheque was encashed through electronical method on 26-9-2016 and debit entry was also made in the S.B. A/c of complainant. Hence, complaint against O.P.no.1 is to be dismissed.
10)Learned counsel for O.P.no.2 contended as pleaded in the written version and additional written version as complainant cheque was returned unpaid for the reason “funds insufficient”, the policy was cancelled rightly Hence, no deficiency in service on their part and complaint is liable to be dismissed.
11) After going through contentions of all the parties and considering the same, we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on both opposite parties. Admittedly the complainant obtained a family medicare policy by paying a premium of Rs.17,066/- through cheque no.247545 drawn on 1st opposite party Dt. 21-9-2017. The policy is valid from 22-9-2016 to 21-9-2017 as per Ex.A2. As per Ex.A1 and Ex.A9 bank statement of complainant with O.P.no.1 cheque no.247545 for Rs.17,066/- shown as withdrawal on 26-9-2016 in favour of U.I.I.C., Ltd., Hyderabad i..e, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Hyderabad and the balance in his account on 26-9-2016 is Rs.1,699.46 ps. But O.P.no.1 has not informed the O.P.no.2 about the encashment of cheque towards policy premium of complainant. According to O.P.no.1 this cheque was encashed by electronic mode in view of the latest technology without presenting original cheque to the bank. However O.P.no.1 should have informed to O.P.no.2 about the encashment of cheque through electronic mode. According to O.P.no.2 he presented the cheque issued by complainant for Rs.17,066/- through its bank i.e., Kotak Mahindra Bank, Kadapa for encashment of cheque but the same was returned unpaid as “insufficient funds” on 28-9-2016. There is no explanation by O.P.no.2 when the cheque was sent to Kotak Mahindra Bank for encashment. But as seen from Ex.A1 and A9 by 26-9-2016 itself the cheque was encashed and debited to the account of complainant in favour of United India Insurance Company Ltd., . However O.P. no2 cancelled the policy under Ex.A3 letter, Dt. 4-10-2016 stating that the cheque was not encashed as “insufficient funds”. Hence, requested the complainant to return the policy. But by that time the policy amount was credited to the account of O.P.no.2 company. Though O.P.no.1 contended that O.P.no.2 alone is responsible for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and O.P.no.2 contended that O.P.no.1 is responsible for not informing the encashment about the cheque of complainant and he is responsible for the inconvenience of complainant, but in our opinion both the opposite parties are responsible for the grievance of the complainant, as complainant paid the amount by way of cheque and obtained medicare policy but due to negligent services of both opposite parties 1 and 2 complainant’s policy was cancelled under Ex.A3 on 4-10-2016. Hence, they are liable jointly and severally to pay the amounts to the complainant adequately. Accordingly points 1 and 2 are answered.
12) Point No.3 :- In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite Parties no.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs.17,066/- (Rupees Seventeen Thousand and Sixty Six Only) + interest of Rs.127/- (Rupees One Hundred and Twenty Seven Only)i.e., policy amount paid by the complainant and pay Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousands Only) towards mental agony and Rs.2,000/-(Two Thousands Only) towards costs of the complaint within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at 9% p.a. till realization.
Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 11th day of January, 2018.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined
For complainant : NIL For opposite party : Nil
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Complainant :-
Ex: A1:- P/c of Bank statement dated.01-11-2016.
Ex: A2:- P/c of policy issue date.22-09-2016.
Ex: A3:- P/c of policy cancel letter dt.04-10-2016 .
Ex: A4:- P/c of request letters dt.08-12-2016.
Ex: A5:- Replay letter issued by opposite party No.2 dt.22-12-2016.
Ex: A6:- Medical Certificate issued by Dr. M. Sreenivasulu.
Ex: A7:- Medical Prescription.
Ex: A8:- Audio logical Evaluation Report, Dt. 7-10-2017.
Ex: A9:- P/c of Bank pass book of complainant issued by Andhra Bank.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party No.1: -
Ex:B1:- Original Letter Dt. 13-2-2017.
Ex:B2:- Original Letter Dt. 8-2-2017.
Ex:B3:- Original Letter Dt. 6-2-2017.
Ex:B4:- Original Letter Dt. 27-1-2017.
Ex:B5:- Original Letter Dt. 12-1-2017.
Ex:B6:- Cheque issued by the petitioner in favour of 2nd opposite party bearing No.247545
Dt. 21-9-2016 drawn on Andhra Bank, Kadapa for Rs.17,006/-.
Ex:B7:- Cheque Return memo, Dt. 28-9-2016.
Ex:B8:- Office copy of letter Dt. 4-10-2016.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party No.2: - Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to
1) Sri C.S. Riyazuddin, Advocate, Kadapa.
- Sri A. Raja Reddy, Advocate, Kadapa.
3) Sri K. Rama Kondaiah, Advocate, Kadapa.
& & &
P. R.
