+ Submit Your Complaint
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 38

Thread: Andhra Bank

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,738

    Default Andhra Bank

    BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD.



    FA.No.389/2009 against CC.No.1045/2007 District Consumer Forum-II, Hyderabad.

    Between:



    A.Raghavender Rao,

    S/o.late Krishna Murthy, Aged 56 years,

    Occ: Partner of M/s.Ramalingeswara Oil Mill,

    Uppugundur, Prakasam District.

    …Appellant/Complainant.

    And

    M/s.Andhra Bank,

    Sultan Bazar, Hyderbad,

    Rep. by its General Manager.

    …Respondent/Opp.Party.



    Counsel for the Appellant : Mr.T.Surya Satish.

    Counsel for the Respondent : Admn.stage.



    QUORUM: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,

    SMT.M.SHREESHA, MEMBER,

    AND

    SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER.



    TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JUNE,

    TWO THOUSAND NINE.



    Oral Order (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice D.Appa Rao, President)

    *******

    1. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, we are of the opinion that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission.

    2. Appellant is the unsuccessful complainant.

    The case of the complainant in brief is that he is the son of late A.Krishna Murthy, who pledged gold ornaments weighing 650 gms, nine LIC policies, four ITC Limited debentures as a guarantor for the loan borrowed by M/s.Ramalingeswara Oil Mill, a partnership firm, from the opposite party bank. Later the bank filed O.S.No.11/1993 against the partnership firm for recovery of the amount. Subsequently, the account of the firm was transferred to one APITCO Limited which in turn discharged the liability under one time settlement scheme, evidenced under discharge certificate dated 01.09.2006. APITCO Limited also requested the bank to return all the securities to the guarantor as the loan account was settled. Subsequently, Krishna Murthy, the guarantor died leaving him, his brothers and others as the legal representatives, who are entitled to the gold ornaments, LIC policies and ITC Limited debentures. When he requested the Chief Manager of the bank by letter dated 15.02.2007 followed by registered notice, the bank did neither give reply nor returned the securities. Therefore, he filed the complaint for recovery of the gold ornaments weighing 650 gms, nine LIC policies, four ITC Limited debentures, besides Rs.2,80,000/- towards damages, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony and Rs.20,000/- per month from the date of complaint till the opposite party returned the securities and costs.

    3. The respondent bank resisted the case. It alleged that the securities were made by a third party and not by the complainant. The manager of the bank had made it clear to the complainant that the securities would be released only to the person who deposited the securities or to his legal heirs on furnishing succession certificate. Neither the complainant nor any proper person had approached the bank with succession certificate. It has not deliberately retained the securities. Neither the complainant nor late A.Krishna Murthy was a customer of the bank. Late Krishna Murthy was only a guarantor, and therefore, not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. It is the civil court that could adjudicate the matter and therefore prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

    4. The complainant in proof of his case filed his affidavit and got Exs.A.1 to A.10 marked, while the bank filed affidavit of its Branch Manager reiterating the facts mentioned in the counter and did not file any documents.

    5. The District Forum after considering the evidence placed on record opined that late A.Krishna Murthy was a guarantor and not a customer of the bank. Since the guarantor died leaving legal heirs, unless the complainant files succession certificate, he was not entitled to the securities pledged by late A.Krishna Murthy as a guarantor. At any rate, the consumer forum was not competent to deal with the matter and therefore, dismissed the complaint.

    6. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal contending that the District Forum did not appreciate either the facts or law in correct perspective. It ought to have noticed that late A.Krishna Murthy, who pledged gold ornaments, LIC policies, Bonds, etc. was not a debtor and therefore there is no need to file succession certificate. The complainant being a legal representative and in the light of various documents like birth certificate, ration card, election card, passport, educational certificates, etc. he was entitled to the securities, more so after discharge of the amount by the APITCO limited to which late A.Krishna Murthy stood as guarantor and therefore prayed that the complaint be allowed.

    7. The point that arises for consideration is whether there are any good and justifiable grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum?

    8. At the outset, it may be stated that the complainant filed the complaint representing himself as son of late A.Krishna Murthy seeking return of the securities pledged by his father as a guarantor towards debt due by a partnership firm under the name and style of Ramalingeswara Oil Mill, on the ground that he is one of the legal representatives and that after the original debt was discharged, he was entitled to the return of ornaments, etc.

    9. No doubt, along with the appeal, he filed general power of attorney dated 30.04.2008 said to have been executed by the other legal representatives in favour of the complainant authorizing him to file the case before the consumer forums and other authorities besides seeking custody of gold articles, LIC Policies, ITC Limited debentures, etc. deposited by late A.Krishna Murthy towards the loan borrowed by the partnership firm, M/s.Ramalingeswara Oil Mill. He also filed “succession certificate” given by the Thasildhar, Nagulpadu Mandal, Prakasam District dated 22.04.2008, wherein he declared the complainant “as a successor” of Amara Krishna Murthy. He also mentioned the names of other family members eight in number who said to have executed general power of attorney which we have mentioned above.

    10. At the cost of repetition we may state that the complainant did not file the complaint representing as a general power of attorney holder of his family members. He filed the complaint in his individual capacity and did not produce these two documents viz. general power of attorney and succession certificate either before the bank or before the District Forum. Even otherwise these two documents cannot occupy the place of a succession certificate contemplated by Sec.370 and 214 of the Indian Succession Act. It is not known as to the competency of a Tahasildar to issue succession certificate. On one hand he alleges that there is no need to file succession certificate, however manages to obtain from an incompetent authority to prefer the claim. The bank is justified in not acting on the claim made by the complainant for return of securities.

    11. Since the complainant could not prove that he is solely entitled to the securities as claimed by him, the District Forum was justified in dismissing the complaint on the ground that of locus standi, though not employed the said expression. Apart from it late A.Krishna Murthy was not a customer of the bank. He was only a third party guarantor. The bank could not have determined the rights of the complainant pertaining to the securities of the deceased guarantor to be returned to him or as to the legal representatives of the guarantor, more so in the absence of any authoritative pronouncement by the competent court for return of the securities to the complainant. From his own showing, it is beyond doubt, that the complainant is not the sole representative to receive these securities pledged by his late father when the other legal representatives are still alive and equally entitled to the securities. The Bank cannot return them when other legal representatives did not appear before them nor made representation to give those documents to the complainant. The dispute cannot be termed as a consumer dispute.

    12. We do not see any infirmity in the order of the District Forum in this regard. This is not a fit case where the appeal could be admitted. In the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed at the stage of admission. However, no costs.

    PRESIDENT

    MEMBER

    MEMBER

    Dt:23.06.2009.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,988

    Default

    Filing Date:19-11-2008
    Order Date:21-03-2009

    BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – II,
    TIRUPATI
    PRESENT: - Sri. G.V.Raghavulu, President
    Smt. T. Sujatha Devi, Member
    Sri. M. Subbarayudu Naidu, Member

    SATURDAY THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE
    C.C.No. 114/2008

    Between

    C.Srinivasulu Reddy,
    S/o. C.Munaswamy Reddy,
    Hindu, aged about 30 years, Lanlord,
    19-9-63, Kennedy Nagar,
    Tirupati. … Complainant

    And

    The Branch Manager,
    Andhra Bank,
    S.V.Arts College Branch,
    Tirupati. … Opposite party

    This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 06.03.09 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.T.Srinivasan, counsel for the complainant and Sri.D.Prabhakar, counsel for the opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following:-
    ORDER
    DELIVERED BY SRI. G.V.RAGHAVULU, PRESIDENT
    ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

    This complaint is filed under Section-12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986, to pass an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.6,200/- the balance of maturity value, to pay Rs.10,000/- towards damages and to pay the costs of the complaint to the complainant.



    2. The averments of the complaint in brief are
    :- The complainant opened R.D.Account with opposite party on 04.08.2005 for a period of 36 months at Rs.1,000/- per month. The maturity value is Rs.40,992/- and the maturity date is 04.08.2008. The complainant was provided with pass book at the time of opening of the account. After depositing the amount for six months in his R.D.A/c.1/13 the complainant availed loan of Rs.4,000/- and repaid the same within two months. The complainant’s brother-in-law by name K.Ramamurthy is working as cashier in the opposite party – bank and the complainant reposed confidence in him and thereby deposited the amount regularly. After discharge of the loan the complainant was provided with a pass book without making any entry of receiving the loan by the complainant and repayment by him. If a loan is availed by a depositor he has to affix one rupee stamp and surrender the pass book with the opposite party. The complainant perused the pass book and found that certain entries were not made in the pass book. After paying 19 installments the complainant again sought for loan but the manager of the opposite party – bank, after receiving the pass book, failed to sanction the loan and return the pass book.

    The complainant was under the impression that the manager for the purpose of sanctioning the loan received the pass book, but to his surprise loan was not sanctioned, but the complainant was depositing the amount through his brother-in-law. There were some family troubles between the complainant and Ramamurthy and hence the complainant used to deposit the amount regularly in person till the maturity date. When the complainant approached the opposite party for sanction of loan for the second time, he was informed that previous loan was not cleared. Suspecting that some foul play was played by the said Ramamurthy, the complainant issued notice to the Manager of opposite party – bank, and Ramamurthy. After the maturity date, the complainant approached opposite party for disbursement of maturity value. On 11.09.2008 the opposite party issued letter to the effect that they are sending Rs.34,792/- after adjusting the loan amount of Rs.4,992/- from his R.D.Account. The opposite party has no right to deduct Rs.4,992/- towards alleged loan, which was already cleared. The pass book issued to the complainant does not reflect the loan availed by him. Infact even taking for granted that the loan amount is still subsisting the opposite party ought to have paid Rs.36,427/- but not Rs.34,792/-. Thus there is deficiency of service in not repaying the maturity value of R.D.Account No.1/13 on the part of opposite party. The complainant got issued notice to the Branch Manager, Additional General Manager and Zonal Office, but there was no proper reply. The complainant brought to notice about the irregularities committed by the Branch Manager, but he was forced to suffer a loss of Rs.6,200/- which the opposite party has to pay. On account of rejection of loan for the second time, the complainant was put to mental torture. The complainant was put to loss and he estimated the damages at Rs.10,000/-. Hence the complaint.




    3.
    In the written version filed on behalf of opposite party, while denying the material averments / allegations made in the complaint, it is stated that the complainant opened R.D.Account No.1/13 with the opposite party on 04.08.2005 for a period of 36 months at Rs.1,000/- per month and the said R.D.Account maturity value was only Rs.39,824/- but not Rs.40,992/- as alleged by the complainant. At the time of opening of R.D.Account, the complainant was provided with a pass book. After paying six installments i.e. Rs.6,000/- the complainant on 06.02.2006 availed loan of Rs.4,000/- under Loan Against Deposits with account No.LAD/01/20040037 from the opposite party – bank, by giving application for advance against term deposits and signed on the revenue stamp on the last page of the R.D. pass book and surrendered the pass book to the bank. The complainant has not repaid the amount till the date of maturity of the R.D.

    The maturity value of the R.D. was Rs.39,824/- and as there was outstanding balance of Rs.4,992/- in the loan account of the complainant, the amount of Rs.4,992/- and a sum of Rs.40/- under the account of sundry receipts was deducted from the maturity value of the R.D.amount, and pay order for a sum of Rs.34,792/- was issued to the complainant by the opposite party. The complainant has not filed any document to show that he has repaid the loan amount of Rs.4,000/- under loan account. The opposite party has no knowledge about the relationship of complainant with Ramamurthy. The opposite party does not know about the family troubles between the complainant and Ramamurthy. In order to get wrongful gain from the opposite party, the complainant made false allegations in the complaint. The damages claimed by the complainant are highly excessive and exhorbitant and he is not entitled for the same as there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complainant unnecessarily dragged the opposite party to the Forum. The complaint may be dismissed with exemplary costs.


    4.
    In support of the averments made in the complaint, the complainant filed his affidavit. The complainant also filed 8 documents, which are marked as Exs. A1 to A8. Ex.A1 is xerox copy of R.D. pass book (Account No.1/13) issued by the opposite party to the complainant. Ex.A2 is model xerox copy of R.D. pass book of Sri Venkateswara Grameena Bank, Tirupati. Ex.A3 is model xerox copy of R.D.pass book of Andhra Bank. Ex.A4 is office copy of legal notice dt:-Nil- got issued by the complainant to the opposite party with speed post receipt dt:27.09.2008. Ex.A5 is office copy of legal notice dt:01.09.2008 got issued by the complainant to the opposite party, the Additional General Manager and Zonal Office of Andhra Bank, Tirupati, with speed post receipts and postal acknowledgements. Ex.A6 is office copy of letter dt:02.08.2008 addressed by the complainant to the opposite party. Ex.A7 is letter dt:11.09.2008 addressed by the opposite party to the complainant. Ex.A8 is xerox copy of letter dt:-Nil- addressed by the opposite party to the advocate for complainant.



    5.
    In support of the case set up in the written version, the Branch Manager of opposite party – bank, filed his affidavit. The opposite party also filed 7 documents, which are marked as Exs. B1 to B7. Ex.B1 is Application Form for Term Deposits of complainant for R.D.A/c.No.1/13. Ex.B2 is R.D. pass book (A/c.No.1/13) issued in the name of the complainant by the opposite party. Ex.B3 is Application for Advance Against Term Deposits dt:06.02.2006 for the loan taken by the complainant. Ex.B4 is Debit Voucher for Rs.4,000/- dt:06.02.2006 for the loan taken by the complainant. Ex.B5 is Statement of Account for R.D.A/c.No.1/13 of the complainant. Ex.B6 is Statement of Account of the loan against Deposit Account No. LAD/01/20040037 of the complainant. Ex.B7 is Transaction Query of R.D.A/c.No.1/13 of the complainant.




    6.
    On behalf of the complainant and opposite party written arguments were filed and we have heard the oral arguments of counsel of both sides.



    7.
    On the basis of pleadings of both the sides, the points that arise for determination are:-
    (i)Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant?
    (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed? If so, to what extent?
    (iii)To what result?



    8. Point No.1:-
    The facts which are not in dispute are:- The complainant opened R.D.Account with opposite party on 04.08.2005 for a period of 36 months at Rs.1,000/- per month and the opposite party issued Ex.B2 R.D. pass book (A/c.No.1/13) in the name of the complainant. After paying six installments i.e., Rs.6,000/- the complainant applied for loan of Rs.4,000/- by submitting Ex.B3 application. The opposite party paid the loan amount of Rs.4,000/- to the complainant by issuing Ex.B4 Debit Voucher. The complainant sent Ex.A6 letter and got issued Ex.A5 legal notice to the opposite party informing that he repaid the loan amount through his brother-in-law K.Ramamurthy, who is working in the opposite party – bank. The opposite party on 11.09.2009 sent pay order for Rs.34,792/- after adjusting the loan amount of Rs.4,992/- from the maturity value of the R.D.A/c.No.1/13 of complainant through Ex.A7 letter. The complainant then got issued Ex.A4 legal notice calling upon the opposite party to pay the entire maturity amount of Rs.40,992/-. Later the complainant filed the complaint on 19.11.2008.




    9.
    The case of the complainant is that the maturity value of the Recurring Deposit is Rs.40,992/-. The case of the opposite party is that the maturity value is Rs.39,824/- and not Rs.40,992/-. The opposite party produced Ex.B1 application submitted by the complainant at the time of opening the R.D.Account. In Ex.B1 the maturity value is mentioned at Rs.39,824/-. The opposite party also produced Ex.B2 original pass book issued to the complainant. In Ex.B2 also the maturity value is mentioned as Rs.39,824/-. Ex.B2 was with the complainant till he applied for loan of Rs.4,000/- on 06.02.2006. At the time of availing the loan the complainant surrendered Ex.B2. He surrendered the pass book to the opposite party by affixing his signature on Rs.1/- stamp on the last page of the pass book.

    The opposite party also filed Ex.B5 Statement of Account for R.D.A/c.1/13 and Ex.B7 Transaction Query of R.D.A/c.1/13 of the complainant. Ex.B5 shows that the complainant paid all the 36 installments of Rs.1,000/- each. Ex.B7 shows that the maturity value of the recurring deposit of complainant is Rs.39,824/-. The complainant failed to establish that the maturity value of his R.D.A/c. is Rs.40,992/-. On the other hand the documentary evidence adduced by the opposite party establishes that the maturity value of the R.D.A/c. of the complainant is Rs.39,824/-.




    10.
    It is the further case of the complainant that though he repaid the loan amount of Rs.4,000/- within two months, the opposite party deducted an amount of Rs.4,992/- towards the loan from the maturity value of the R.D.A/c. On the other hand the case of the opposite party is that the complainant did not repay the loan amount till the maturity date of R.D.A/c. and hence the outstanding balance of Rs.4,992/- in the loan account of the complainant and a sum of Rs.40/- under the account of sundry receipts was deducted from the maturity value of the R.D.amount of Rs.39,824/-. In the complaint it is averred that after discharge of the loan the complainant was provided with pass book without making any entry of receiving the loan and repayment of the loan, that the complainant perused the pass book and found that certain entries were not made in the pass book and that the complainant after paying 19 installments sought for second loan, but the manager of the bank after receiving the pass book failed to sanction the loan and return the pass book.

    The complainant filed Ex.A1 xerox copy of Recurrent Deposit pass book said to have been returned to him after he repaid the loan of Rs.4,000/-. In the complaint it is not specifically stated who actually given the pass book to the complainant. Ex.A1 shows that entries are made up to 19th installment. However, the initials of the official of opposite party – bank are not there against the entries from 9th to 19th installment. According to the complainant because of family troubles between him and his brother-in-law Ramamurthy, the said Ramamurthy played some foul play. The contention of the counsel for the complainant is that Ramamurthy is an employee of opposite party – bank, and the opposite party is vicariously liable for the acts of his employee. This contention is wholly untenable. It is not the case of the complainant that he deposited the loan amount of Rs.4,000/- into opposite party – bank, and Ramamurthy without accounting for it misappropriate the same. Not even a scrap of paper is filed by the complainant to show that he paid the loan amount of Rs.4,000/- to the opposite party – bank.

    If there is foul play by Ramamurthy, the complainant has to proceed against him. It is impossible to believe that the complainant kept quiet without asking his brother-in-law Ramamurthy for any receipt for the repayment of the loan amount of Rs.4,000/-. Ex.A1 xerox copy of R.D. pass book (A/c.No.1/13) and Exs. A2 and A3 model R.D. pass books of Sri Venkateswara Grameena Bank and Andhra Bank are in no way advance the case of the complainant. As the complainant did not discharge the loan taken by him, the opposite party rightly deducted the outstanding balance of Rs.4,992/- in the loan account of the complainant from the R.D. maturity amount of Rs.39,824/- and paid the balance to the complainant by way of pay order. The complainant miserably failed to establish that the opposite party committed deficiency in service.




    11.
    For the above reasons, we find that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party towards the complainant. This point is accordingly answered against the complainant.


    12. Point No.2
    :- In view of our finding on point No.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. This point is accordingly answered.



    13. Point No.3
    :- In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but without costs.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,988

    Default Andhra Bank

    BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:: WEST GODAVARI:: ELURU
    Present:
    Sri. P. SRIDHARA RAO, B.Sc., L.L.B.,
    President
    Sri. B. Apparao, M.A., M.L.,
    Member
    Smt. R. Seetharamamma
    Member
    Thursday, the 30th day of April, 2009

    CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 107/2008
    Between:

    Mareedu Srihari Rao, S/o Naganna, Tirumalapuram village
    Jangareddigudem, W.G. Dist., -- Complainant

    And

    1. The Chief Executive, Family Health Planning Ltd.,
    AdityaTowers, 3,4, Floor, Road No.2
    Banjara Hills, Hyderabad .34

    2. The Manager
    Andhra Bank, Bhayyannagudem village,
    Koyyalagudem Mandal, W.G. Dist.,

    3. United India Insurance Co., Ltd.,
    Hyderabad. -- Opposite Party
    This complaint coming before us for final hearing on 15-4-2009 and on perusing the Complaint, versions and other material papers on record and on hearing the arguments of the complainant appeared in person and Sri. Ch. Bheemeswara Rao, Advocate for the 1st opposite party, K. Kasturi, Advocate for the 2nd opposite party and Sri. D. Satyanarayana, Advocate for the 3rd opposite party and the matter having stood over for consideration to this day, this forum made the following:-
    ORDER

    The complainant filed the present complaint under Sec. 12 (B) of Consumer Protection Act with a prayer to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards service and further sum of Rs.50,000/- towards interest and costs. The averments of the complainant in brief are that :

    2. The complainant is an agriculturist having S.B.A/c No. ABJ173 in Andhra Bank, Bhayyannagudem branch/2nd opposite party. On 8-6-2005 the Andhra Bank, Bhayyannagudem Branch deducted a sum of Rs.969/- towards medical insurance under Arogyadhan scheme from the account of the complainant and credited the amount to the family health plan, Hyderaband/1st opposite party. The said health scheme will be in force from 9-6-2005 to 8-6-2006. While the matter stood thus, due to his ill health, the complainant in the month of December, 2005 went and joined in the hospital of Dr. V.Y. Rao at Vijayawada who inturn intimated the said fact to the 1st opposite party on 21-12-2006. it is further alleged that in the meantime, due to some unavoidable circumstances, the complainant underwent surgery pertains to his heath in Usha Mullapudi Cardiac Center, Hyderabad in the month of January, 2006 and lodged claim for a sum of Rs.1,15,293/- basing on the bills issued by the hospital authorities with the 1st opposite party who inturn rejected the claim. Later on the advise of Consumer Counsel of Jangareddigudem Mandal, the complainant got issued notice dt. 30-3-2007 to both the parties demanding payment of the bill amount. But the complainant did not receive any reply regarding settlement of the claim from the opposite parties. Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid reliefs.



    3. It is necessary to mention here that during the pendency of the complaint and after filing the version by the 1st opposite party taking a plea that the United India Insurance Co., Ltd., is a proper and necessary party for adjudication of this complaint, the complainant added United India Insurance Co., Ltd., as a 3rd opposite party as per the order in I.A.No.582/2008 dt. 2-9-2008.



    4. The 1st opposite party filed his version resisting the complaint and contended that it has received authorization letter from Usha Mullapudi Cardiac Center, Hyderabad stating that the complainant again admitted on 21-12-2005 in the hospital for the treatment of CAD and that the complainant is a “known case of CAD/SVD, Unstable Angina, Normal LV Function EF.69% since 2002 and as such, s per the above said information, the 1st opposite party rejected the authorization vide PA 18194 since the claim was contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy taken by the complainant with the 3rd opposite party and the same was informed to the hospital through their letter dt.
    26-12-2005 and due to the absence of privity of contract and lack of true cause of action, the complaint against this 1st opposite party is liable to be dismissed.



    5. The 2nd opposite party filed its version resisting the complaint and stated that this opposite party only a facilitator and is not liable to settle any claim that this opposite party has acted promptly without any negligence that the complainant had given a declaration that in case of any claim under the policy, this 2nd opposite party will not undertake any responsibility or will not accept any correspondence and the same has to be pursued with the 3rd opposite party specified TPA only. The complainant also did not submit any documents or claim papers through this opposite party to the 1st opposite party as such this opposite party was not aware of the claim and as such there is no deficiency in service on its part and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs against this opposite party.





    6. The 3rd opposite party filed its version protesting the complaint stated that at the time when the complainant submitted claim application for the reimbursement of the medical expenses of Rs.1,15,293/- paid by him to Usha Cardiac Center, Hyderabad, the 1st opposite party basing on the Angiogram Report given by Usha Cardiac Centre, Vijayawada, has rightly rejected the claim confirming that the complainant is a known case of Caronary Artary Disease presented with Angina and Dyspnoea NYHA GRADE III which does not come under the purview of the policy under Clause 4(2) of Standard General Exclusions of Medi Claim policy. Further the complainant never directly approached this 3rd opposite party and in fact he made all correspondence with the 1st opposite party only that the 1st opposite party as a third party administrator to the 3rd opposite party processed the claim of the complainant promptly and fairly without any hesitation and so there is no deficiency in service on the part of either the 1st opposite party as well as the 3rd opposite party. As such there is no necessity to pay compensation to the complainant in any manner and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs against this opposite party.



    7. The complainant in proof of his complaint filed his affidavit supporting the averments of his complaint and got marked Ex A.1 to Ex A.13. The opposite parties 1 to 3 filed their affidavits in support of their versions filed by them and got no documents marked.

    8. The points for determination now are :

    1.Whether the rejection of the claim made by the complainant by the 1st opposite party as a third party administrator of 3rd opposite party is justifiable and whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for by him ?

    2.To what relief ?

    POINT No: 1 :

    As seen from the material placed on record by both sides, there is no dispute about the complainant having S.B. A/c with the 2nd opposite party and his obtaining of Medical Insurance Policy from the 3rd opposite party through the 2nd opposite party covering the risk for a period commencing from 9-6-2005 to 8-6-2006 and his undergoing treatment for the first time from 21-12-2005 to 24-12-2005 in Usha Mullapudi Cardiac Centre, Vijayawada and for the 2nd time on 26-12-2005 in Usha Mullapudi Cardiac Centre, Hyderabad.


    It is the contention of the complainant that for his admission and undergoing surgery to his heart in Usha Mullapudi Cardiac Centre at Hyderabad on 26-12-2005, he incurred a sum of Rs.1,15,293/- towards treatment and as such he is entitled for the reimbursement of entire treatment costs of Rs.1,15,293/-.

    It is the contention of the 2nd opposite party that it is only a facilitator and it is not liable to settle any claim and the complainant had given a declaration and undertaking that in case of any claim under the said policy, the 2nd opposite party will not undertake any responsibility or will not accept any correspondence and the same has to be pursued with the 3rd opposite party only and so the 2nd opposite party is not having any responsibility in settling the claim.

    The complainant has not disputed the said contention of the 2nd opposite party at anywhere in the material placed on record. Therefore in view of the said situation, the claim against the 2nd opposite party is liable to be dismissed.
    The question that has to be seen now is whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for by him against the opposite parties 1 and 3 ?.

    As per the version of the 3rd opposite party and the affidavit filed in support of it, it is a fact that the 1st opposite party is a 3rd party administrator to the 3rd opposite party and processed the claim of the complainant. It is the contention of the complainant that as on the date of his undergoing treatment to his heart disease in Usha Mullapudi Cardiac Centre at Hyderabad, the policy was in force and so he is entitled for the relief sought for by him. On the other hand, the contention of the opposite parties 1 and 3 is that the complainant took the medi-claim policy for an assured sum of Rs.50,000/- for the period covering from 9-6-2005 to 8-6-2006 by suppressing the fact of his suffering from pre-existing disease, as such the 1st opposite party rejected the claim made by the complainant stating that the complainant is suffering from pre-existing disease and the claim does not come under the purview of the policy under Clause 4(2) of Standard General Exclusions of Medi-claim policy, and so the opposite parties 1 and 3 are not liable to reimburse the claim made by the complainant and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed. So the question that has to be seen now is whether the contention raised by the opposite parties 1 and 3 is tenable ?


    It is the contention of the learned counsel for the 3rd opposite party that the complainant submitted the insurance proposal form to the 3rd opposite party showing Dash (-) at relevant column No.9 against the existing disease/illness/injury. The said contention is not disputed by the complainant. Ex A.3 is the copy of Coronary Angiography Report dt. 21-12-2005 issued by Usha Cardiac Centre, Vijayawada. A perusal of the recitals of the said report Ex A.3 clearly goes to show that the complainant was suffering from pre-existing disease since 2002 ie., much earlier to his taking policy which is suppressed by the complainant at the time of his giving proposal form. So as rightly contended to by the learned counsel for the 3rd opposite party, the claim made by the complainant towards reimbursement of expenditure incurred by him for his undergoing treatment to his heart disease in Usha Mullapudi Cardiac Centre, Hyderabad on 26-12-2005 does not come under coverage of the policy in view of Clause 4(2) of Standard General Exclusions of Medi-claim obtained by the complainant in question. Further, admittedly the complainant, to claim the present amount, not even renewed his policy for a period of 3 years continuously without any break under Exclusions (1).
    Under the said circumstances and for the reasons stated above, we found that there is some force in the contentions of the learned counsel for the opposite parties. Therefore we hold that the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs sought for by him and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

    Point No. 2:

    In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,738

    Default Andhra Bank

    Between:-
    Chelimela Krishna Reddy, S/o.Lachi Reddy,
    Age:40 years, Occ:Agriculture,
    R/o.Angarajupally village, Mandal Chennur,
    Dist.Adiabad. …Complainant.
    //AND//

    1. The Andhra Bank,
    Branch Chennur, Dist.Adilabad.
    Rep.by its Branch Manager.
    2. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
    Rep.by its Divisional Manager,
    D.O.No.4, IInd floor Posnett Bhavan,
    Ramkore, Hyderabad. (Abhaya Gold Policy)
    3. United India Insurance Company Ltd.,
    Rep.by its Divisional Manager,
    Divisional Office:Bhokhtapur, NH.No.7 road,
    Adilabad. (Issued Policy as Kisan Credit Card).


    …Opp.Parties.

    Counsel for Complainant : Mr. T.Roshi Reddy.
    Counsel for Opposite Parties : Mr.S.Raja Ram.(OP.1).
    Mr.G.Raghu Ram


    FRIDAY THE 29th DAY OF MAY 2009.


    -:ORDER:-


    1. The complainant is resident of Angarajipally village of District Adilabad. That the complainant’s father Lachi Reddy was the account holder in Andhra Bank, Branch Chennur vide ASB-1054 (ABHAYA SAVINGS ACCOUNT) for Rs.1,00,000/-. He is also having the Kisan Credit card No.2005331 for Rs.1,00,000/- covered by Abhaya Scheme. It was launched by the United India Insurance company with the Andhra Bank. All the Opp.Parties are liable to pay the risk covered by the said amount to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- if the account holder dies.

    The complainant is the nominee of the same account holder. The Opp.Party No.2 issued Policy for Abhaya Gold to the Account holder of Andhra Bank and linked policy for value of Rs.1,00,000/- as accidental benefits. The Opp.Party No.3 issued the policy of Andhra Bank PATTABI AGRI GOLD (Kisan Credit Card) holder this is also link for value of Rs.1,00,000/-.

    Unfortunately on 13.03.2007 the father of the complainant left house for answer the natural call. It has been noticed that the dead body of the father of the complainant is lying in the drainage tank at outskirts of the village and the said Lachi Reddy/account holder has died accidentally by drowning while attending natural calls. The above said accidental death has been reported to the police in turn the police Chennur has registered a case in Cr.No.46/2007 under Sec.174 of Cr.P.C. Later on the complainant has reported the same to the Opp.Party No.1, in turn the Opp.Party No.1 asked the complainant to submit relevant documents pertaining to this case. As such the complainant furnished the same.


    Thereafter the Opp.Party No.1 sent the above entire documents with Claim Form to Opp.Party No.2&3 for sanctioning the claim of the complainant. The Opp.Party No.2&3 has sent repudiated letters to the Opp.Party No.1 marking the copy of the same to the complainant stating that the age of the deceased was 85 years as on the date of death and the policy covers the age of 5-70 yrs only. The Opp.Party No.2&3 with malafide intention have shown the above age wrongly which is inadmissible by the law.


    Hence the complainant prayed this Forum to allow this complaint and direct the Opp.Parties No.1 to 3 as under:


    To pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand Only) on account of accidental death of deceased/Lachi Reddy due to rendering deficiency of service acting negligently and resorting to unfair practice by the Opp.Parties.


    To award interest @ 18% per annum over the ordered amount from the date of this complaint till its realization.


    2. The Opp.Party No.1 filed counter. The contents of counter is as follows:

    It is true that a person by name Lachi Reddy (who is shown as father of the complainant) was an account holder of Opp.Party No.1 vide Account No.ASB/1054 (Abhaya Savings Account) under Kissan Credit Card No.2005331. The said account is provided with a link insurance plan with Opp.Party No.2.

    In the instant case the Opp.Party No.1 as a Banker and as per the said insurance link scheme deducted Rs.5/- from the said account of the deceased on 22.09.2006 and paid Rs.10/- on behalf of the Bank to the Opp.Party No.2. Thus a total amount of Rs.15/- is credited to the current account bearing No.335 in the bank of Opp.Party No.1 on the same day. The said premium was debited from the account of the deceased and credited to Opp.Party No.2 towards premium for coverage of Accidental insurance for an amount of Rs.50,000/- only as per the said Link Insurance scheme. The deceased is stated to be about 70 years at that time.

    However the said premium is deducted subject to the conditions of the policy and said scheme. It is made clear there is no lapse or short fall or deficiency of service on the part of this Bank Opp.Party. So far as this Opp.Party is concerned. Complainant is liable to be dismissed.


    The contents of counter and the defense is common for both Opp.Parties No.2&3 are as follows:

    After receiving the Claim Form an investigation was ordered and in the investigation it was revealed that the deceased who had a electoral card was aged 82 years at the time of his death, where as the policy is meant for people aged between 5 to 70 years, hence it appears the deceased while taking out the Kisan Credit card and account vide ASB-1054 in Andhra Bank has intentionally misrepresented his age and acquired the Kisan Credit and Bank account, since the deceased has not furnished his true age and has not come with clean hands, these Opp.Party is not liable to pay any compensation under the above schemes basing on the electoral I.D. Card the Opp.Party No.2 has repudiated the claim legally. There was no deficiency in service nor the Opp.Party No.2 acted negligently nor resorted to unfair practices, hence the question of paying compensation under above heads does not arise.


    3. Both parties filed Proof Affidavits.


    4. On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A11 are marked. Ex.B1 is marked on behalf of Opp.Parties.


    5. Now the point for consideration is whether there are grounds to allow the petition?


    6. Heard both sides. Perused Ex.A1 to A11 and Ex.B1 marked. The complainant filed this case for calculation of amount and the Abhaya Gold Scheme, Kisan Credit Card Scheme Policy. The Ld. Advocates for Opp.Parties submitted that Section 64 of the Insurance Act covers the payment of policy amount and the insurance company cannot pay beyond the amount assured. Thus as seen from policies Abhaya Gold Scheme it covers Rs.1,00,000/- only, so far as Kisan Credit Card Scheme Policy. The amount assured only is Rs.50,000/-.



    7. The Ld. Advocate for complainant submitted that in the agreement under Ex.A11 the schedule 7D it is mentioned as Rs.1,00,000/- so he claimed Rs.1,00,000/-. The Ld. Advocate for Opp.Parties said that the agreement is between the bank and Insurance Company and not between the complainant and Insurance Company. In this case on hand, only the premium of Rs.15/-(5+10) is credited to the current account bearing No.335 in the bank of Opp.Party No.1 and the said premium was debited to account of deceased and credited to Opp.Party No.2 towards premium for coverage of accidental insurance for an amount of Rs.50,000/- only in the said link insurance scheme.


    8. Thus as seen from records, only Rs.50,000/- will be coverage under Kisan Credit Card Scheme Policy. So far as Abhaya Gold Scheme is concerned there is no dispute both parties agreed that complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus so far as the assured amount is concerned complainant is entitled to get Rs.1,00,000/- under Abhaya Gold Scheme and Rs.50,000/- under Kisan Credit Card Scheme Policy. The 2nd contention raised by the Opp.Parties is that the deceased is aged more than 70 years and so he is not qualified to get the benefit under the schemes. In support of his contention the Opp.Parties based their arguments on the electoral card issued in favour of deceased.


    9. The Ld. Advocate for complainant stated that it is not reliable and that in the present case the deceased person having, 65 years is entitled to claim the reliefs. In support of his contention he relied on Ex.A1 to A3, A6 & A8. Ex.A1 is the copy of F.I.R. In Ex.A1 the age of Lachi Reddy was shown as 68 years. In Ex.A2 Inquest report also the age of the deceased was shown as 68 years only. Ex.A3 is copy of P.M.E. report it also shows the age of Lachi Reddy as 65 years. In Ex.A6 is certificate issued by Tahasildar it shows that Lachi Reddy was aged 65 years on the date of his death. Ex.A8 is copy of House hold card it shows the age of Lachi Reddy as 60 years as on 09.05.2006. Thus a perused of Ex.A1 to A3, A6&A8 clearly discloses that Lachi Reddy was aged below 70 years as on the date of his death.


    10. Thus the contention of Opp.Party No.2 is that Lachi Reddy aged more than 70 years on the date of his death is not tenable and complainant is entitled for amount assured. So far as Opp.Party No.1 is concerned he is only a facilitator and Opp.Party No.2 and 3 are alone liable to pay the amount. Thus no disservice can be attributed to Opp.Party No.1 and case against Opp.Party No.1 false.


    11. In the result the complaint is allowed. The Opp.Party No.2 and 3 are directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) under Abhaya Gold Scheme and Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) under Kisan Credit Card Scheme Policy within one month from the date of receipt of this order

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    2,988

    Default

    P.Gopala Reddy, S/o.Kanakareddy, H.No.6-150, Srinagar colony, 4th lane,
    Kothagudem, Khammam District.
    ….Complainant
    and
    The Manager, Andhra Bank, Kothagudem branch, Khammam District.
    ….Opposite Party.
    This C.C coming on before us for final hearing, in the presence of Sri.K.L.Narasimha Rao, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.K.Panduranga Rao, Advocate for opposite party; upon perusing the material papers on record; and having stood over for consideration, this Forum passed the following:-


    ORDER
    (Per Sri.K.V.Kaladhar, Member)
    1. This complaint is filed under section 12-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the following averments;


    2. The complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 5-12-1990 under Mediclaim Deposit for a period of 2 years. The opposite party issued mediclaim deposit receipt No.107717 dt.5-12-1999 bearing No.17/90. After maturity period of two years, the complainant will get Rs.12,185/-. After depositing the said amount, the complainant lost the original mediclaim deposit receipt in his house and in spite of his best efforts, he could not traced out and file any claim with the opposite party for the said maturity amount of the deposit till date. The complainant had trace out the original deposit receipt recently and submitted for the payment of due amount under the said deposit till date with interest. The complainant gave notice to the opposite party on 31-5-2007 by registered post for the payment of maturity amount of deposit, but he did not receive either the matured amount or the reply from the opposite party. Hence, this complaint to direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.12,585/- with interest at 24% p.a., to award an amount of Rs.10,000/-, to award interest with 24% p.a. from the date of maturity i.e. 5-12-1992 till the date of payment and to award costs of the complaint.



    3. The complainant filed his affidavit along with following documents,
    Ex.A.1 - Mediclaim deposit receipt No.17/90, dt.5-12-1990 for Rs.10,000/-
    Ex.A.2 - Postal receipt
    Ex.A.3 - Acknowledgment
    Ex.A.4 - letter addressed by the complainant to the Manager, Andhra Bank,
    Kothagudem.



    4. After receipt of notice, the opposite party appeared through its counsel and filed counter, by denying all the averments made in the complaint and alleged that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or in facts and as per the admission of the complainant, he deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- and the complainant did not inform or approach to the bank immediately after the maturity period.



    The claim is more than 19 years period. There is any record regarding the deposit of amount in the bank, that in spite of best efforts made by the opposite party, old records are not traced, as it is 19 yeas old record. It is further alleged by the opposite party that there is no proof either the complainant approached the bank or received the amount or informed regarding the deposited amount and further stated that it has doubt regarding the genuine of the original deposit form also genuine of the complaint. Hence, he prays to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.



    5. Upon perusing the material papers on record and upon hearing the arguments on both sides, the point that arose for consideration is,
    Whether the complainant is entitled to claim the maturity
    amount under medicalim policy along with interest and costs
    after the lapse of 19 years?





    Point:




    6. It is the contention of the complainant that he deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- on 5-12-1990 vide receipt No.107717 and the date of maturity was 5-12-1992 and maturity value was Rs.12,185/-. It is the contention of the complainant that he lost the original mediclaim receipt in his house and he could not traced out the same and the complainant did not receive any amount from the opposite party. The complainant traced out the original deposit receipt recently and submitted it before the opposite party for the payment and due amount under the deposit, but the opposite party did not made the payment of maturity amount.





    7. For this the contention of the opposite party is that if the complainant did not inform or approach to the bank immediately after the maturity period and the claim is more than 19 years old. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.





    8. In the light of above averments and contentions made in the complaint and counter, it is an admitted fact that the complainant deposited an amount of Rs.10,000/- in the opposite party under medi-claim policy, its maturity date was on 5-12-1992 and the maturity value of the deposited amount was Rs.12,185/-. The opposite party did not file any documentary evidence to prove that the complainant had already received the deposited amount along with interest after the maturity period. Any how, the complainant filed original receipt, hence we are of the opinion that the complainant had kept the deposited amount and interest, of Rs.12,185/- in the bank for 19 years.



    As such, there is no loss to the opposite party regarding the maturity amount. Hence, the entitlement of interest and costs on the maturity amount does not arise, as he himself failed to present the mediclaim deposit receipt after the maturity period before the opposite party.





    9. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed, directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.12,185/- (Rupees twelve thousand, one hundred and eighty five only) to the complainant. The rest of the claim regarding interest and costs is dismissed.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,738

    Default Andhra Bank

    Thotti Venkata Padmavathi,

    W/o Late T. Ramachandra Reddy, aged about 40 years,

    At present residing D.No. 2/155, S.B.I Colony,

    Everest Road, Kadapa. ….. Complainant.

    Vs.



    Andhra Bank, Rajampet, Rep. by its Branch Manager. ….. Respondent.



    O R D E R



    (Per Sri P.V. Nageswara Rao, President),



    1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.



    2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant was the wife of Thotti Ramachandra Reddy, who was a driver in APSRTC, Kadapa Depot met with an accident and died on 4-9-2008. The Nandalur police registered a case as Cr. No. 62/2008 under section 304-A IPC against the driver of APSRTC bus of Rajampet, Kadapa bearing No. AP11 Z : 4787. The deceased had Andhra Bank Jeevan Abhaya Scheme account bearing No. ABJ417. Under the scheme insurance coverage was Rs. 1,00,000/- in case of natural death and Rs. 2,00,000/- in case of accidental death. The scheme was in collaboration with LIC of India. The complainant after the death of her husband submitted death certificate, FIR, inquest report and post mortem report to the respondent bank and she received Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of cheque dt. 30-12-2008 from the bank under the scheme. The complainant requested the bank to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- under the scheme as assured by the bank. The Opposite party informed that it was not applicable to her. Therefore, the complainant filed the complaint for Rs. 1,00,000/- with interest @ 24% p.a. and Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs.



    3. The opposite party filed a counter that as per the policy terms and conditions Rs. 1,00,000/- was by way of cheque dt. 30-12-2008. The Andhra Bank Abhaya Jeevan Scheme was in corroboration with LIC of India covering group of account holders of the bank and would be renewed from year to year, as per bank circular No. 307, dt. 28-11-2007. The group LIC policy was renewed for insurance year from 01-12-2007 to 30-11-2008 and with effect from 01-3-2008, the insurance coverage for natural and accidental death was restricted to Rs. 1,00,000/- and was paid and there was no negligence on the respondent and hence, the complainant was not entitled to the relief as prayed for. The complaint was not maintainable because the LIC of India was not a party. Thus the complaint may be dismissed with costs.



    4. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.

    i. Whether there is any negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the respondents?

    ii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

    iii. To what relief?



    5. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A7 were marked and on behalf of the respondent Ex. B1 was marked.



    6. Point No. 1 & 2 There was no dispute that the husband of the complainant by name Thotti Ramachandra Reddy had an account under Andhra Bank Abhaya Jeevan Scheme bearing No. ABJ : 417 with opposite party and he died in the accident on 4-9-2008. While working as driver in APSRTC, Kadapa Depot. Ex. A2 was Xerox copy of pass book issued by Opposite party. Ex. A3 was Xerox copy of FIR in Cr. No. 62/2008, dt. 5-9-2008 under Section 304-A IPC against the driver bearing registration No. AP11 Z : 4787 of APSRTC Bus, Rajampet Depot. Ex. A4 was Xerox copy of inquest report. Ex. A5 was Xerox copy of post mortem certificate. As per terms and conditions of Jeevan Abhaya Scheme the opposite party should pay Rs. 1,00,000/- in case of natural death and Rs. 2,00,000/- in case of accidental death as insurance coverage. The scheme was in collaboration with LIC of India. After the death of the husband the opposite party bank paid Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of cheque dt. 30-12-2008 to the complainant.

    The Xerox coy of cheque was Ex. A6. Ex. A7 was brochure issued by Bank for Jeevan Abhaya Scheme. In Ex. A7 it was clearly mentioned that in case of accidental death Rs. 2,00,000/- should be paid under insurance coverage and Rs. 1,00,000/- should be paid in case of natural death. Therefore, the complainant addressed a letter to the opposite party to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- under the scheme and submitted all the documents. The Xerox copy of the letter was Ex. A1, dt. 01-11-2008. But the opposite party contended that the bank Head Office issued a circular No. 307, dt. 28-11-2007 that the Jeevan Abhaya Scheme was renewed with LIC of India for the insurance year commencing from 1-12-2007 to 30-11-2008 and on renewal of the scheme the insurance coverage was restricted to Rs. 1,00,000/- in case of natural death or accidental death and it was with effect from 01-3-2008. The copy of the circular was Ex. B1. The circular was dt. 28-11-2007 and the death of the husband of the complainant was on 4-9-2008. The circular was with effect from 01-3-2008. The complainant’s husband was an account holder in view of Ex. A7 under the scheme from 11-9-2007 as per Ex. A2. So the restriction was with effect from 01-3-2008 and not prior to 01-3-2008. The account of the deceased person was even prior to the circular Ex. B1. Therefore, the opposite party was liable to pay another Rs. 1,00,000/- as claimed by the complainant. There was no dispute that the deceased died in an accidental death. The opposite party did not inform to the group account holders under the scheme after Ex. B1 was issued. Thus the points are answered accordingly.

    7. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite party to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) without interest, compensation and costs, payable within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order

  7. #7

    Default Andhra Bank

    Nakkala Laxman S/o Kishta Goud, aged 42 years, Occ: Driver in APSRTC, R/o H.No.9-10-368, Sainagar, Varni Road, Nizamabad.

    AND

    1) Andhra Bank, Bada Bazar Branch, Phulong Road, Near Nyalkal Chowrastha, Nizamabad, represented through its Branch Manager.

    2) Andhra Bank, DIT-ATM Cell, 5th Floor, Koti, Sultan Bazar, Hyderabad – 500 095, represented through its Person-in-charge.

    The complainant a resident of Nizamabad district is the account holder with the Opposite Party bank bearing No.ABJ/01/1999 and was also having ATM card No.4688170749047348.



    On 17-03-2008 when the complainant tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- from his account through ATM he could not receive the money but the ATM slip showed the debit entry of Rs.10,000/- showing the ledger balance of Rs.41,204/- instead of Rs.51,204/-. Hence lodged a complaint with the Opposite Party No.1. As there was no response the complainant issued legal notice on 04-08-2008. The Opposite Party gave reply stating that the complainant received Rs.3,000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- on 17-3-2008 due to same technical error in ATM and the deficit amount i.e. Rs.7,000/- is already credited to his account on 09-08-2008, hence there is no deficiency in service.



    The acts of the Opposite Parties caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant hence filed the present complaint with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to credit the deficit amount of Rs.3,000/- immediately along with interest 1) @ 15% per annum from 17-3-2008 until credit of money, 2) to pay @ 15% interest per annum on Rs.7,000/- from 17-03-2008 to 09-08-2008 and also Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with cost of the complaint.



    Opposite Party filed counter admitting that the complainant is having account in their bank and also was given ATM card facility.



    The dispute is regarding the amount withdrawn through ATM on 17-3-2008. The Opposite Party contended that due to technical and mechanical error the ATM dispensed with only Rs.3,000/- (five notes of Rs.500/- and five notes of Rs.100/-. As the command is given by for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- the system recorded the debit entry of Rs.10,000/- from the account of the complainant.



    On receipt of the complaint from the complainant the Opposite Party No.1 forwarded the same to Opposite Party No.2 from where all the transactions of Andhra Bank will be recorded first. After through enquiry it was established that the complainant had withdrawn Rs.3,000/- only and hence after verifying the account and transactions of the ATM the Opposite Party re-credited Rs.7,000/- to the account of the complainant and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties to the complainant.



    Finally contended that at the time of applying for issue of ATM card the complainant had agreed to the terms and conditions of the ATM card and hence the complainant had to bear with the technical error of ATM card, therefore prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost in the interest of justice and equity.



    In lieu of the evidence both the complainant and Opposite Party’s filed respective affidavit in chief and they have got marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 on behalf of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 on behalf of the Opposite Parties.



    2. Heard arguments of both side Advocates and perused the written arguments filed by Opposite Parties.



    3. The following points will arise for consideration:



    1) Whether Rs.3,000/- was withdrawn by the complainant on 17-03-2008 ? as contended by the Opposite Parties ?



    2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs prayed for ? To what relief?



    5. Point No.1: There is no dispute about either the complainant having account or ATM card issued by the Opposite Party.



    The dispute is only in respect of transaction dated 17-03-2008. It is admitted by both parties that on 17-03-2008 the complainant tried to withdraw an amount of Rs.10,000/- from his account through ATM.



    The complainant contended that through he attempted to withdraw Rs.10,000/- from his account through ATM, amount was not received by him but the ATM slip shown ledger balance of Rs.41,000/- instead of Rs.51,000/-. After the legal notice the Opposite Party credited only Rs.7,000/- in his account instead of Rs.10,000/- and further denied his eligibility of Rs.3,000/- falsely stating that Rs.3,000/- was withdrawn by him and hence alleged deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties and in evidence filed Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 documents.



    The Opposite Party counsel counters the said allegation and stated that there is no deficiency in service on their part and in evidence filed Ex.B1 to Ex.B6 documents.



    Opposite Party counsel mainly relied on Ex.B3 and Ex.B4 documents which clearly establish that on 17-03-2008 when the ATM card of the complainant was used for withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- and the ATM had dispensed five notes of Rs.500/- and five notes of Rs.100/-. Thus total being Rs.3,000/- and naturally the user of the ATM card would only take notes that are dispenses at the time of use of ATM card number of the complainant 4688170749047348, R.No.9556 dated 17-03-2008 and ATM cash delivered is clearly mentioned in ATM journal message bill (Ex.B1). Thus Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 clearly establish that the complainant received Rs.3,000/- on 17-03-2008 from ATM. Accordingly this point goes in favour of Opposite Parties and against the complainant.



    9. POINT NO 2: Ex.B5 clearly shows that the remaining Rs.7,000/- was credited in the complainant account on 09-08-2008. The Opposite Party counsel vehemently argued that to award interest on Rs.7,000/- is not tenable as the delay in re crediting the amount was due to procedural delay as it usually take some time for reconciliation of the account.



    We are of the opinion that the complainant should not be suffered for the procedural delay hence we find it appropriate to award on interest @ 6% per annum on Rs.7,000/- from 17-03-2008 to 19-08-2008 the date on which amount is credited to the complainant account by the Opposite Party.

  8. #8

    Default Andhra Bank

    Aleti Vijayalaxmi W/o late Aleti Narsareddy, aged 55 years, Occ: Household, R/o H.No.6-2-256, Behind SBH, Subash Nagar, Nizamabad.

    Complainant

    1. The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, Branch: Nirmal, District: Adilabad, represented through its Main Branch Manager, Nizamabad.


    2. The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co., Ltd., D.O.-IV, 2nd Floor, Tilak Road, Nizamabad, represented by its Branch Manager.

    Opposite Parties

    ORDER

    1. Complaint filed praying to direct the Opposite parties to pay Rs.1,00,000/- with interest from the date of death and to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- for causing mental agony and for rendering deficient services together with costs, on the following allegations:


    The complainant’s husband by name Aleti Narsa Reddy met with an accident on 01-09-2005 with bus No.AP-10Z-540 and he became bedridden because of the injuries and while undergoing long treatment, he died on 14-01-2006. During his lifetime, he was holding Abhaya Gold ABG No.3004 with opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 has tie-up with Opposite party No.2 for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. Immediately after the death of policy holder, complainant informed and completed all the formalities and in spite of running from pillar to post, her claim was not settled and ultimately opposite party No.2 gave reply stating that the claim is rejected. Hence this petition.


    2. Opposite party No.1 filed counter admitting that the husband of the complainant by name Aleti Narsa Reddy is an account holder with it and this opposite party had tie up with opposite party No.2 and according to the said policy and tie-up, in the event of death of the account holder, Rs.1,00,000/- is to be paid.

    It is further alleged that in pursuance of the letter and information given by complainant, they have forwarded necessary papers to opposite party No.2 and requested opposite party No.2 to settle the claim and it reminded opposite party No.2 from time to time to settle the claim. It is further alleged that the moment it submits and forwards the claim statement forms to opposite party No.2, the duty of opposite party No.1 is over and there is no deficiency of service on its part. Therefore, it approached to dismiss the complaint against it.


    3. Opposite party No.2 filed counter admitting the policy taken by the deceased Aleti Narsa Reddy and also admitted that they have a tie-up with opposite party No.1. It further alleged that the claim was rejected and the same was intimated to complainant and opposite party No.1, on the ground that the deceased was a chronic alcoholic and smoker as such, the death is not due to injury received in an accident.

    Therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation. It also further alleged that there is delay in submitting the claim papers and the complainant is residing at Nirmal and she has given her address as resident of Nirmal only but now she filed this case at Nizamabad. Therefore, this court is not having territorial jurisdiction. The repudiation of the claim is only on the arguable legal grounds, as such, it does not cause any mental agony to the complainant, hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

    4. Complainant filed her affidavit which is nothing but replica of the complaint and in support of her claim, she got marked Exs.A1 to A21. She also got filed the affidavit of PW2 doctor who treated the deceased Aleti Narsa Reddy i.e., husband of the complainant. Affidavits of opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 are filed which are also nothing but reproduction of their counters filed and in the affidavit filed by the Officer of opposite party No.2 he alleged that there is enormous delay in submitting claim form and that itself is sufficient to reject the claim. It also reiterated that this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction.

    5. The following points will arise for consideration:


    1) Whether this forum has territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint ?

    2) Whether the death of Aleti Narsa Reddy i.e., husband of the complainant is due to injuries received in the accident or it is a natural death ?

    3) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.2.


    4) To what relief?

    6. Point No.1 : The learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 contended that in all the medical records and in the cause title also the complainant mentioned her address as at Nirmal. Therefore, no cause of action arose at Nizamabad. Hence this Forum is not having jurisdiction to file the complaint.

    It is a fact that originally the complainant and her husband lived at Nirmal and it seems after the death of her husband, she migrated and started living at Nizamabad, as seen from her affidavit and address mentioned in the cause title of the complaint itself. Further, according to Section 11 of C.P. Act, 1986, a complaint shall be instituted in the District Forum within the local limits of whose jurisdiction, -

    (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

    (b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given or the opposite parties who do not reside, or carry on business or have a branch office or personally works for gain, as the case may be, acquiesce in such institution; or


    (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.

    The residence of the opposite parties is the only criteria to decide whether this Forum is having jurisdiction or not. Therefore, the opposite party No.2’s office is at Nizamabad, and as such, this Forum is having jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

    7. Point No.2 : According to the learned counsel for the complainant, the deceased Aleti Narsa Reddy received injuries in a motor vehicle accident and while undergoing treatment, he died on 14-01-2006 and according to the PME report Ex.A3, the cause of death is injury to the head. Therefore, the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party No.2 is unjustified and untenable.

    The learned counsel for the second opposite party contended that the medical record filed by the complainant itself shows that there was a prolonged treatment after the alleged accident and in fact in the discharge summary issued by Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences, it is mentioned that the deceased is a chronic smoker and alcoholic. Therefore, the death is not because of the injury received by the injured Aleti Narsa Reddy, in the alleged accident.


    8. The pleadings of all the parties will reveal that the deceased met with an accident on 01-09-2005 and he was immediately treated at local hospital and from there he was shifted to Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences and from there after discharge, he has taken treatment in various private hospitals and ultimately the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 14-01-2006 while under going treatment.

    The medical record i.e., Exs.A10 to A21 reveal these facts and the various places and hospitals where the deceased had taken treatment for the injuries received by him in the accident. Apart from that, PW2 doctor who treated the deceased in the hospital also gave affidavit stating that the deceased Aleti Narsa Reddy was treated by him for the injuries received in the accident. Ex.A14 is the discharge summary issued by Nizam’s Institute of Medical Sciences and in clinical summary para there was mention that patient is a chronic smoker and alcoholic.

    It is a fact that this discharge summary was given on 09-09-2005 and there after he was treated in various hospitals as seen from the other medical record. Ex.A3 is the post mortem examination report given by Civil Hospital at Nirmal in Cr.No.57/2005 and where it was specifically mentioned that the death is due to head injury. Therefore, the documentary evidence and oral evidence of PWs 1 and 2 will clearly establish that after receiving injuries in the accident while undergoing treatment, Aleti Narsa Reddy died. It is a fact that there is a mention in Ex.A14 that the patient is a chronic smoker and alcoholic.

    9. Merely the deceased is a chronic smoker and alcoholic is not a condition to infer that the death is due to consuming alcohol or smoking. There must be enough evidence either medically or by other cogent evidence to infer to such fact or to infer that the deceased died to smoking and consuming alcohol only.


    10. Both the opposite parties have not disputed the fact of Aleti Narsa Reddy received injuries in the accident that occurred on 01-09-2005. In fact, there is no evidence contrary to the evidence of Ex.A2 and final report filed by police Ex.A9. Therefore, even after investigation, the concerned police filed case against the accused and it is crystal clear that the deceased received injuries in a road traffic accident.

    The cause of death according to the Ex.A3 Post Mortem Examination is death is due to head injury. And as seen from the medical record, he was continuously in the hospital and taken treatment and in spite of that he could not survive. The question before this Forum is whether the death of Aleti Narsa Reddy is due to head injury received in the accident or it is natural because he is a chronic smoker and alcoholic. In view of the documentary evidence Ex.A3 and Ex.A10 to A21, we are of the considered opinion that the death of the deceased Aleti Narsa Reddy is only due to head injury received in the accident. The Opposite parties have not filed any record or adduced any oral evidence to show that the death of Aleti Narsa Reddy is because he is a chronic smoker and alcoholic.

    Therefore, there is no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Opposite party No.2. It was further alleged that there is a delay in submission of claim papers but as seen from the counter of the opposite party No.2, it is crystal clear that the claim papers were filed in time and the opposite party No.1 forwarded the same to Opposite party No.2 in time. Therefore, this contention also does not hold water. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party Nop.1 but there is deficiency in the service of opposite party No.2 which repudiated the claim on untenable grounds and that resulted in mental agony to the complainant.

    The deficiency on the part of opposite party No.2 can be also gathered from the letters written by the opposite party No.2 which are marked as Ex.A6 and Ex.A8. Ex.A6 is dated 20-09-2007 which was addressed to the Manager of the opposite party No.1 stating that the claim of the complainant is repudiated because the deceased was a chronic smoker and alcoholic. Ex.A8 is letter dated 10-12-2007 written to the advocate of the complainant in reply to legal notice received by it and in which it was mentioned that the claim of the complainant is under investigation and on receipt of the investigation report from the invetigator, they will inform the status of the claim to him.

    These two letters are self contradictory when under Ex.A6 the claim is already repudiated, how can opposite party No.2 could give a reply to the legal notice received stating that the claim is still under investigation i.e., almost three months the claim is repudiated by it under Ex.A6. This also shows that the manner in which the claims are being processed, settled, or negatived by the officials of the opposite party No.2 which amounts to gross negligence on their part. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.2 in repudiating the claim for no tenable reasons.



    11. IN THE RESULT, we allow the complaint of the complainant directing the Opposite party No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) towards the amount covered by the claim of Abhaya Gold A/c No.ABG-30043, together with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of repudiation i.e., 20-09-2007 till realization and also to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency in service and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of the complaint. The above sums are payable by the Opposite party No.2 within a period of one month from the date of this order.

  9. #9

    Default Andhra Bank

    Jara Laxmaiah, s/o.Muthaiah, age: 60 years, occu: Agriculture,

    r/o.Koppurai village of Tekulapally mandal, Khammam District.

    …Complainant.

    1. The Andhra Bank, rep. by its Manager, Yellandu Branch,

    Khammam District.

    2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Manager,

    Khammam.

    …Opposite Parties.
    O R D E R

    The deceased, Parvathi, having ABJ Account No.301512 with the opposite party No.1 and as per the ABJ Savings scheme the life of the account holder had insured for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with the opposite party No.2 and unfortunately the account holder died on 3-6-2005 and after the death of the deceased, the complainant approached the opposite parties as a legal heir for insured amount and submitted all the documents to the opposite party No.1, but there is no response from the opposite parties and the complainant made a written representation on 23-2-2006, by claiming the insured amount, and even after receipt of the same, the opposite parties did not respond to settle the claim of the complaint.

    As such the complainant vexed with the attitude of the opposite parties, issued legal notice, dt.30-11-2006 and both the parties kept quite inspite of receipt of legal notices. Accordingly, the complainant filed the present complaint and prayed to direct the opposite parties to pay the assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest at 12% P.A. from 3-6-2005 and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation.

    2. Along with the complaint, the complainant filed affidavit along with the following documents;

    (i) Pass book issued by the opposite party No.1 vide A/c.No.ABJ 301512

    (ii) Original death certificate, dt.7-7-2005

    (iii) Office copy of legal notice, dt.30-11-2006 along with postal acknowledgments

    (iv) Letter addressed by the opposite party No.2, dt.5-12-2006 to the counsel for complainant

    3. After receipt of notice, the opposite parties appeared through their counsels and filed counters by denying allegations made in the complaint.

    4. In the counter, the opposite party No.1 admitted that the deceased, Parvathi having Savings Bank Account No.ABJ 301512 and insured her life for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with the Divisional Office, L.I.C. of India, Hyderabad and denied the other allegations that they did not respond to settle the claim of the complainant. The opposite party No.1 submitted that they did not have any information regarding the death of the deceased/account holder, except legal notice from the counsel for the complainant, dt.30-11-2006 and after receipt of legal notice, the opposite party No.1 had addressed a letter and asking the complainant to furnish necessary documents to them to forward the same to the Insurance company, but there is no correspondence from the complainant.

    The opposite party No.1 also submitted that the death information must be informed to them within a period of 90 days from the date of death of the deceased for forwarding the same to the Insurance company for settlement of claim and also submitted that the complainant neither informed the same nor made any claim within the time prescribed. As such there is no liability to pay the sum assured as there is no deficiency in service on the part of them and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

    5. Along with the counter, the opposite party No.1 filed Xerox copy of hand book of insurance linked saving scheme, (ii) letter dt.4-12-2006 addressed by the opposite party No.1 to the complainant.

    6. In the counter, the opposite party No.2 submitted that, after receipt of legal notice, they addressed a letter to the opposite party No.1 for furnishing the details of the policy. The opposite party No.1 had informed the opposite party No.2 vide Letter No.0653/ABJ/114/dt.3-9-2007, that the ABJ accounts were linked with LIC, Divisional Office, Hyderabad. The opposite party No.2 also submitted that the complainant falsely made them as a party to the proceedings as such prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

    7. Along with a petition, the opposite party No.2 filed a letter dt.30-9-2007 addressed to the opposite party No.2 by the opposite party No.1.

    8. In view of the above submissions made by both the parties, now the point for consideration is,

    Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed?



    POINT:

    9. As seen from the averments of the complaint and counter, there is no dispute regarding the issuance of savings bank account No.ABJ 301512 to the daughter of the complainant and issuance of insurance policy on her life for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by the opposite parties. The only dispute with regard to the non receipt of death information and non receipt of claim form to the opposite parties within reasonable time and it is the contention of the opposite party No.1 that the complainant straight away got issued legal notice through his counsel for settlement of insurance amount without completing the necessary requirements and as seen from the averments of the counter of the opposite party No.1, after receipt of legal notice, the opposite party No.1 addressed a letter to the complainant to furnish necessary documents for forwarding the same to the insurance company to facilitate the claim of the complainant and instead of receipt of the said letter from the opposite party No.1, the complainant did not make any correspondence with them and in support of contentions of opposite party No.1, filed a letter, dt.4-12-2006 addressed by the Bank Manager to the complainant, asked to send the proof of claim form and relevant documents.

    On the other hand the complainant did not file any proof, regarding the correspondence, and did not file proof of claim form, which he has made. Moreover as per the letter, dt.30-9-2007, addressed by the opposite party No.1 to the opposite party No.2 that the account of the deceased, Parvathi is linked with LIC of India, Divisional Office, Hyderabad. In this case the relief is sought against the LIC of India, but the said corporation is not made as a party.

    The L.I.C. of India is a proper and necessary party. Since the complainant has failed to implead the L.I.C. of India as proper and necessary party, the complaint is not maintainable for non joinder of necessary parties. After considering the material papers on record, we feel that the insurance company is only having capacity to pay the insured amount to its policy holders but in the present case on hand the opposite party No.1 is only the mediator between the policy holder and the insurance company to make mediations between them, as such there is no liability to pay the insured amount on the part of opposite party No.1. In view of the above discussion, there is no deficiency on the part of opposite parties to settle the claim of the complainant. As such the point is answered accordingly against the complainant.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,738

    Default Andhra Bank

    Syed Mahaboob Subhani,

    S/o. Mohammad,

    K.B.Road, Chilakaluripet town,

    Guntur District.



    C/o. V.V.Ramanuja Rao, Advocate,

    2-14-469, Syamalanagar,

    Guntur – 522006. … Complainant


    1. The Branch Manager,

    Andhra Bank,

    Main Road, Chilakaluripet town,

    Guntur District.

    2. The Regional Manager,

    Andhra Bank,

    Regional Office,

    Opp. Indian Tobacco Association, G.T.Road,

    Guntur. … Opposite parties

    O R D E R
    This complaint is filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant praying this Forum to direct the opposite parties to return the original documents/title deeds bearing No.212 dt.20-02-1987 and to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency of service with interest, Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.50,000/- towards legal expenses.

    The averments of complaint in brief are as follows:

    The complainant had approached the 1st opposite party in the month of March, 1987 for loan for construction of a shed and the 1st opposite party had granted loan for an amount of Rs.50,000/- on 09-03-1987 under account No.SSI 199413. The loan has to be cleared in 72 monthly installments with a gestation period of 3 months. At the time of obtaining loan, the complainant had deposited original title deed bearing document No.212 dt.20-02-1987 security. Subsequently, the complainant paid the loan amount in installments and finally the amount was paid on 31-03-2001 and obtained receipts for the same. The 1st opposite party has not returned the original title deed of the complainant after discharge of loan and is postponing the same on one or other pretext.

    The complainant got issued legal notice dt.19-09-07 to the opposite parties for return of the documents and the same was received by opposite parties on 20-09-007 and on 25-09-07. But they did not choose to reply. The complainant could not expand his business or sell his establishment as he is not having the original documents. If the original documents are returned to the complainant, he could have utilized the same for any purpose. The complainant suffered mentally and physically that the original documents are not returned by 1st opposite party. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the complaint.

    The 1st opposite party filed version, which was adopted by 2nd opposite party.

    The averments in brief are as follows:

    It is true that the complainant is a customer of 1st opposite party and the loan obtained by the complainant is also true. But with regard to the payment of final amount as stated that he paid on 31-03-09 is incorrect. The complainant failed to repay the installments as scheduled upon and caused lot of inconvenience to the bank and ultimately the account of the complainant was closed on 27-12-02 by way of one time settlement account.

    This fact was suppressed by the complainant. Having closed the account by complainant in the year 2002, the reasons for not receiving the documents till the date of alleged legal notice is to be explained by the complainant. In the process of shifting of branch of 1st opposite party, there are some records which are moved from one place to other. In view of said process, the title deed of complainant is to be verified by 1st opposite party and this opposite party is in that process to ascertain the same. The complainant is not entitled for the imaginary figures of compensation as mentioned in the complaint. This opposite party will verify the records and if the same is found, the said documents will be delivered to the complainant. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

    The complainant filed his affidavit in support of his complaint reiterating the facts mentioned in the complaint. The 1st opposite party filed its affidavit in support of its version reiterating the facts mentioned in the version and the same was adopted by 2nd opposite party. On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A14 are marked. No documents are marked on behalf of opposite parties. Ex.A1 is the X-copy of title deed dt.19-02-1987. Ex.A2 to A10 are the credit advice slips for repayment of loan made by the complainant. Ex.A11 is the letter dt.19-02-1988 issued by 1st opposite party to the complainant regarding the loan. Ex.A12 is the copy of legal notice issued by the complainant to opposite parties. Ex.A13 is the acknowledgements (2 in number) dt.20-09-07 and 25-09-07. Ex.A14 is the letter of opposite party for one time settlement addressed to the complainant.

    Now the points for determination are that

    1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
    2. Whether the complainant is entitled for reliefs as prayed for?
    3. If so, to what relief?

    POINTS 1 to 3

    It is not in dispute that the complainant obtained loan from the 1st opposite party on 09-03-1987 and discharged the same even according to opposite party by one time settlement. On 27-12-02, the loan account was closed. Further it is not in dispute that the title deed deposited by the complainant with 1st opposite party at the time of obtaining loan is not returned inspite of oral and written demands made by the complainant.

    It is the case of opposite party that during shifting of their branch office certain record is lost and the title deed deposited by the complainant is also found misplaced. However, that they were promising to return back the same whenever traced. The complainant has waited for sufficient time and also got issued legal notice for return of the document. Even then there is no compliance from the opposite party.

    During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for opposite party came with a proposal that despite search made by the bank officials, the original title deed could not be traced in their office and that their Ombudsman suggested to issue a certificate to that effect to the complainant to meet the requirements. Further he has also filed a memo on 23-07-09 along with a certificate of the bank stating that the original title deed is misplaced and certified copy of title deed duly obtained from the office of Sub Registrar, Chilakaluripet.

    The copy of memo dt.23-07-09 along with copy of certificate and title deed have been perused by the counsel for complainant. He has objected the way the certificate is given by the Branch Manager without disclosing the designation and putting necessary rubber stamp on it. This has been pointed out to the learned counsel for opposite party, who in turn has also called for the Bank Manager. On pointing out, the aforesaid objection, the same has been rectified even by mentioning the loan account. Therefore, we are of the view that the present course followed by the bank would meet the needs of the complainant.

    As original title deed deposited by the complainant is misplaced in the office of opposite party either due to their carelessness or otherwise while shifting their office, this caused mental agony to the complainant. This clearly amounts to deficiency of service on their part in not returning the original title deed even after discharge of debt amount.

    The complainant has claimed huge amount of Rs.5,00,000/- under various heads even a title deed pertaining to the plot measuring 128 sq. yards which was purchased in the year 1987 for sum of Rs.9300/-. The plot is situated in Chilakaluripet town. At any rate, it does not cost more than two lakhs in the present value approximately. It is altogether different issue since he did not loose his title or possession over the said plot except original title deed. The bank has made good the loss by giving certified copy of the same and also certificate of misplacing.

    The complainant has claimed about Rs.50,000/- towards deficiency of service, compensation for mental agony and suffering, interest and legal charges. In this regard he has relied upon the following decisions:

    II (2006) CPJ 197 (NC)

    In this case also the complainant deposited original title deeds with Bihar Sate Housing Corporation Federation Ltd. for obtaining loan. Despite repayment of loan, title deeds are not returned. The National Commission has awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and suffering.

    In 2005 (1) CPR 421 the complainant Tamilnadu State Commission having considered the quantum of loan and fixing the equal amount of compensation for not returning the title deed, reduced the compensation of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.5000/-.

    Having considered the deficiency of service due to which the mental agony suffered by the complainant and keeping in view both the loan amount and value of the property, we would feel it reasonable to fix sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation on all counts. Accordingly, we award the same. The points are answered accordingly.

    In the result, the complaint is allowed in part as indicated below:

    1. The complainant is entitled and is at liberty to receive certificate along with certified copy of title deed from the Forum since they were submitted by opposite party.

    2. We further direct the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

    3. The opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards cost of litigation.

    4. The above orders shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which they shall carry interest @9% p.a. till the date of realization.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,738

    Default Andhra Bank

    Nakkala Jayamma, W/o Anjanaiah, age 47 years,

    D.No. 2/305-4, Marutinagar, Kadapa City. ….. Complainant.

    Vs.

    1) The Chairman, Andhra Bank, Head Office,

    Koti, Hyderabad.

    2) The Branch Manager, Andhra Bank, 19/35,

    Chennai Road, Kadapa city. ….. Respondents.

    O R D E R

    2. The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:- The complainant is the resident of Marutinagar, Kadapa city. She is having S.B. Account with R2 branch at Kadapa. The complainant used to receive amounts regularly from Gulf countries as her relations are staying there. She is to maintain the account with the respondent properly.

    On 25-7-2007 she deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- and on 6-10-2007 she deposited Rs. 1,00,000/- on two occasions. There were receipts issued by R2. Both the receipts issued by the respondents. The complainant believed that the same is entered into the records or registers of the respondents’ bank also. Later the complainant came to know that there were certain amounts misappropriated by B. Jayaraju, clerk cum cashier, who was an employee of the respondents bank and as such the complainant verified her account with the respondent bank and found that the said amounts covered under two receipts were not entered into the accounts or ledgers of the bank.

    The amounts were misappropriated by B. jayaraju, clerk cum cashier of the respondent bank. A case in Cr. No. 228/2007 under section 409 and 420 IPC was registered in Chinnachowk police station, Kadapa and charge sheet was also filed by the police. The said case is pending trial in the concerned court. The respondents are liable for the acts done by their employees. As seen from the copy of the ledger, it is clear that the said Jayaraju was not mentioned the amounts which were deposited by the complainant regularly. She cannot be expected to verify the ledgers or accounts books of the respondents bank, whenever she deposits the amounts with the bank and usually any customer takes receipts from the Bank.

    The respondents are bound to make the amounts to sure to the amounts deposited by her. The complainant requested the respondents several times to make an entry in their registers and to make the payment to her, but the respondents have paid a deaf ear. Thus the respondents are deficient while rendering services properly. The complainant is nothing to do with the amounts misappropriated and thus she is entitled for the amounts as follows.

    a) Amount deposited on 25-7-2007


    Rs. 50,000/-

    b) amount deposited on 6-10-2007


    Rs. 1,00,000/-

    c) Interest at 18% from 6-10-2007 to 2-3-2009


    Rs. 33,750/-

    d) Amount for deficiency of service and mental agony


    Rs. 2,00,000/-

    Total Rs. 3,83,750/-

    The cause of action for the petition arose on 25-7-2009 and 6-10-2009 when the complainant deposited amounts with R2, on all dates when the employee of the respondents B. Jayaraju, clerk cum cashier misappropriated several amounts of the customers including the complainant, on all dates when there was a case registered against him by the concerned police and the complainant is entitled for the same.

    The amounts deposited with the R2 bank is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum. The complainant prays this Hon’ble Forum to direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of realization, to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- for deficiency of service and mental agony and Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

    3. R2 filed a counter stating that the complainant has opened S.B. Account bearing No. 21616 with R2 bank and she used to operate the same. R2 use to supply the statement of account to the complainant for transactions transacted with R2 periodically. The complainant was expected to go through the statement of account supplied to her periodically and bring to the notice of R2 of any discrepancy found in the statement immediately thereafter, which she did not do so, except getting a vague notice issued to R2 through her counsel with all false allegations. It is a fact that B. Jayaraju, working as clerk cum cashier with R2’s bank committed misappropriation of certain funds remitted by certain customers over a period of time by acknowledging receipt of cash on the counterfoils, but not accounting for the same in the books of the branch.

    On noticing the same the matter was reported to the Vigilance department of the bank which investigated into the matter. During the investigation it was noticed that Jayaraju misappropriated certain funds remitted by the complainant as claimed by her. R2 has lodged a complaint with 1 town police station, Kadapa on 11-12-2007, which was registered as Cr. No. 228/2007 U/s 409 & 420 IPC. During the investigation of the crime the complainant was also examined by the police and her statement was recorded. The statement recorded on 22-12-2007, it was stated by her that she had remitted a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 25-4-2007 that she had also remitted another sum of Rs. 50,000/- on 25-7-2007 and obtained counterfoils for the same and however, these amounts were not credited to her account.

    The complainant got issued legal notice dt. 26-11-2007 issued to R2 through her counsel, already she had deposited Rs. 50,000/- on 21-3-2007 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 25-5-2007 and Rs. 1,00,000/- on 6-10-2007 to the credit of her S.B. Account and obtained counter foils / receipts for the same and however, while amounts of Rs. 50,000/- remitted on 23-1-2007 and Rs. 1,00,000/- remitted on 6-10-2007 were credited to the account with delay.

    The amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- remitted on 25-5-2007 and Rs. 50,000/- dt. 25-5-2007 were not credited to her account that she approached R2 requesting to give credit amount details. The respondent in stead of giving proper reply for non credit of amounts to her account has misbehaved with her.

    For the said notice R2 got reply issued to the counsel of the complainant requesting him to advise the complainant to produce all original counterfoils in her possession to verify the records of the branch and redress her grievance. However, there was no response from the complainant nor she approached R2 with the original counterfoils.

    4. Contrary to what is alleged in the notice dt. 26-11-2007 now she alleges that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- remitted on 6-10-2007 and the amount of Rs. 50,000/- remitted on 25-7-2007 were not credited to her account. In the notice dt. 26-11-2007 it was clearly admitted by her that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- remitted by her on 6-10-2007 was credited to her account with delay.

    The verification of records of the branch reveal that the S.B. pay in slip which was prepared on 6-10-2007 for remitting the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for which the counterfoil is held by the petitioner was actually remitted into the account on 8-10-2007 by altering the date from 6-10-2007 to 8-10-2007. The reason for much late remittance might be the temporary misappropriation of the amount for two days by the cashier jayaraju. If actually the amount remitted on 6-10-2007 is different from the amount credited on 8-10-2007, the petitioner must be holding another counterfoil dt. 8-10-2007 for Rs. 1,00,000/-.

    The complainant must be holding another counterfoil dt. 8-10-2007 for Rs. 1,00,000/- the counter foil claimed to have been issued to the complainant on 25-7-2007. A Xerox copy of which is filed before this Hon’ble Forum contains alternations as on to the date. The alternation must have been made with a malafide intention of making an unlawful claim against the bank, taking advantage of the misdeed committed by the cashier of the branch. The Xerox copy of the counterfoil claimed to have been issued to her on 25-7-2007 for the amount of Rs. 50,000/- must have been issued to her prior to 25-7-2007 for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- remitted, which is now pressed in to service by altering the date to make an unlawful claim against the bank.

    She never remitted any amount on 25-7-2007. The complainant has choosen to file only Xerox copies of the counterfoils while retaining the originals with her, which speaks volumes of her malafide intentions of making an unlawful claim against the bank and with an intention of preventing truth to come out. There is no deficiency of service on the part of R2 as alleged by the complainant and the complaint is liable to be rejected.


    5. R1 filed a memo adopted the counter of R2 in all material facts.

    6. On the basis of the above pleadings the following points are settled for determination.

    i. Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

    ii. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the respondents?

    iii. To what relief?

    7. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of the respondents Ex. B1 to B5 were marked. Oral arguments were heard from both sides.

    8. Point No. 1& 2 Ex. A1 is the Xerox copy of counterfoil receipt dt. 25-7-2007 for Rs. 50,000/- issued by Andhra Bank, Kadapa. Ex. A2 is the Xerox copy of counter foil receipt dt. 6-10-2007 for Rs. 1,00,000/- issued by Andhra Bank, Kadapa. Ex. A3 is the Xerox copy of FIR in Cr. No. 228/2007 of Chinnachowk Police station, Kadapa. Ex. A4 is the Xerox copy of charge sheet in Cr. No. 228/2007 of Kadapa I town police station. Ex. B1 is the original savings bank accounts pay in slip dt. 6-10-2007 to the credit of S.B. A/c No. 21616 in the name of the complainant for Rs. 1,00,000/-. Ex. B2 is the statement of account in the name of the complainant from 01-6-2007 to 31-12-2007 maintained by the bank of R2. Ex. B3 is the Xerox copy of 161 (3) Cr.P.C statement of the complainant recorded by the police in Cr. No. 228/2007 of Kadapa I town police station. Ex. B4 is the reply notice dt. 13-12-2007. Ex. B5 is the legal notice dt. 26-11-2007 of the complainant.


    9. As could be seen from the documentary evidence it is crystal clear that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- that was credited by the complainant on 6-10-2007 to her account maintained in the bank of R2 was credited to her account on 8-10-2007 with a delay of 2 days, which is reflected in Ex. B1 and B2. Though this amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was credited on 6-10-2007 by the complainant vide Ex. B1 it was credited to her S.B. Account actually on 8-10-2007 vide Ex. B2.

    This amounts to temporary misappropriation by the concerned clerk cum cashier, who is already facing a trial for the offence of 419 and 420 of IPC in the concerned criminal court. With regards to the amount of Rs. 50,000/- which was remitted by the complainant on 25-7-2007 was not reflected under Ex. B2 statement of account that contains the transactions particulars from 1-6-2007 to 31-12-2007 pertaining to the S.B. Account of the complainant.

    That means the amount of Rs. 50,000/- remitted by the complainant on 25-7-2007 vide Ex. A1 is not brought on record and it is not credited to the account of the complainant. This may be a part of misappropriation committed by Jayaraju, Clerk cum Cashier of R2’s bank. The said employee already facing suspension and also facing trial for the misappropriation in the criminal court. R1 and R2 definitely responsible for the amount deposited by the complainant which is not brought on her account.


    10. Point No. 3 In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing both the respondents jointly and severally credit Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty Thousand only) to the S.B. A/c of the complainant with 9% interest from the date of complaint till the date of realization and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards mental agony and Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards costs, within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Rest of the claim is dismissed.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,356

    Default Andhra Bank

    N. Venkateswara Rao,
    S/o. Late N. Someswara Rao,
    H.No.43-262/1C,
    Narsimha Rao Pet,
    Kurnool – 518004. …Complainant

    -Vs-

    Andhra Bank,
    By its Manger,
    Narasimha Rao Pet Branch,
    43/134-1A,
    Kurnool – 518 004. … Opposite party

    ORDER

    1. Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act
    1986.


    2. The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:- The complainant
    was a Retired Assistant Director of Agriculture and an account holder
    of the opposite party bank. He took 19 acres of land for lease of seven
    years period at Peddapothulapadu Village , Mahaboobnagar District
    for raising Maize , Jawar , and Chilly. The complainant presented a
    cheque for Rs. 4,592/- dated 06-01-2009 issued by the Junior Civil
    Judge Court, Kurnool at 7-45 P.M and same was endorsed by the
    Manger of the bank. The working hours of the bank was 8-00 A.M. to
    8-00 P.M. The cheque clear-ing time was 10-30 A.M to 11-00 A.M. On
    7th itself the cheque was not cleared. When questioned the bank
    mentioned that the clearing account of 7th was closed on the evening
    of the 6th . It was against banking rules .


    If he had cleared on 7th , the complainant would have drawn the cash on 7th at ATM. But the cheque was not sent on 7th . 8th was a holiday and so the cheque was sent for clearance to the State Bank of India , Main Branch on 9th late hours. The amount could not be drawn on 10th . Therefore , there was deficiency of service and negligence on the part of the bank. The
    notice dated 29-01-2009 was issued but there was no response. Thus
    the complaint was filed for Rs.20,000/- towards compensation and
    Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony totaling Rs.30,000/- together with
    costs.
    Cond.,
    - 3 -

    3. The opposite party filed a written version that the complainant
    was not a consumer of Andhra Bank , N.R Pet Branch , Kurnool .
    It was true that the cheque was presented for encashment on
    06-01-2009 for Rs.4,592/- around 19.45 hours and same was
    endorsed by the manager on the counter foil of savings bank Account
    Pay-In-Slip. The service center Pilot would collect the clear-ing bags at
    9-00 A.M every day from 11 branches in Kurnool and consolidated in
    the service center and the service center manger would present in the
    clearing house run by State Bank of India.


    The cheques would be presented in the clear in house on or before 11 -00 A.M every day. By the time the cheque was presented the clear-ing time was closed at 4-00 P.M . All the cheques received on 06-01-2009 would be sent on 07-01-2009 . On 08-01-2009 was national holiday for Moharam and so the cheque was sent for collection on 09-01-2009 and credited in the
    complaint account on the same day. There was no deficiency of service
    and thus the complaint may be dismissed with costs.

    4. On the basis of the above pleadings the points for consideration
    are (i) whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the
    respondent/ opposite party ?
    (ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed
    for?
    (iii) To what relief?
    5. On behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to A7 were marked
    and on behalf of the opposite party no document was filed.
    Both sides filed written arguments .
    Cond.,
    - 4 -


    6. Point No. 1 & 2 : The complainant presented a cheque for
    Rs.4,592/- dated 06-01-2009 issued by the Court of Junior Civil Judge,
    Kurnool at about 7-45 P.M on 06-01-2009 itself. It was an admitted
    fact by the opposite party . The cheque was not sent to service
    centre for clearance on 0 7 -01-2009 by the opposite party. The
    reason was the cheques collected by 4-00 P.M on 06-01-2009 were
    sent on 07-01-2009 for clearance through service center Pilot . The
    cheque of the complainant was received at 7-45 P.M i.e, beyond 4-00
    P.M and so it was not sent on 07-01-2009 but it was sent on
    09-01-2009 .


    Even though the cheque was received at 7-45 P.M . On
    06-01-2009 within the banking hours yet all the cheques collected on
    06-01-2009 at 4-00 P.M were sent for clearance on 07-01-2009. It
    was the duty of the opposite party to send all the cheques collected
    the time of closing of the bank , on the next day i.e, 07-01-2009 .
    Sending the cheque on 09-01-2009 was deficiency of service and
    hence the opposite party was liable to pay compensation for mental
    agony to the complainant.


    7. The complainant filed Ex.A1 office copy of the notice dated
    29-01-2009 to the opposite party . Ex.A2 was the un registered lease
    deed of the complainant , Ex.A3 was the counter foil on account-pay
    in-slip issued by opposite party on 06-01-2009 . Ex.A4 was the ATM
    Slip . Ex.A5 was another ATM slip . Ex.A6 , A7 were also ATM Slips to
    show that there was in sufficient fund on 09-01-2009 by 5-30 P.M .
    But in Ex.A7 the ATM slip at 5-24 P.M on 09-01-2009 the cheque
    amount Rs.4,592/- was credited in the State Bank of India in the
    account of the complainant. Therefore deficiency of service was on the
    part of the opposite party.
    Cond.,
    - 5 -
    8. Point NO. 3 : In the result , the complaint is allowed directing the
    opposite party to pay Rs.1,000/-( Rupees one thousand only) towards
    compensation for mental agony within 30 days from the date of
    receipt of this order and also pay cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five
    hundred only).

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,356

    Default Andhra Bank

    M/s.Vani Traders, rep. By its Proprietor by name Nalla

    Srinivasa Rao, s/o.Venkata Rama Rao, age: 42 years,

    shop No.18, Club complex, Madhira Mandal, Khammam

    District.

    …Complainant

    and



    1. Andhra Bank, Madhira branch, rep. By its Branch Manager, Branch office, Madhira.



    2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. By its Branch Manager,

    Branch office, 1-7-70, Madhucan complex, Jublipura,

    Khammam Town and District.

    …Opposite parties.



    This C.C. came before us for final hearing on 1-9-2009; in the presence of Sri.K.Raja Sekhara Reddy, Advocate for complainant and of Sri.Ravindranath, Advocate for opposite party No.1, and of Sri.G.Seetha Rama Rao, Advocate for opposite party No.2; upon hearing the arguments and upon perusing the material papers on record, and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum passed the following order:


    O R D ER





    1. This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the proprietor of M/s.Vani Traders and he is doing a retail and wholesale business like iron and hardware items and also some house items. He applied bank loan for development of his business in Andhra Bank, Madhira branch. On 2-2-2005 he availed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from opposite party No.1 and spent the said amount towards purchase of additional items of iron and hardware items. As per the advice of opposite party No.1, he had insured his business and other goods in the shop with opposite party No.2. On 6-4-2005 he had taken shopkeepers fire insurance policy over the shop vide policy bearing No.051701/48/06/34/00000026 valid from 6-4-2005 to 5-4-2006 and used to pay the premium amount of Rs.1,746/- to the opposite party No.2. On 13/14-3-2006 in the early hours the shop of the complainant was burnt and all the metals kept in the shop also burnt, due to electric short circuit. The complainant intimated the same to the Madhira Police station and also the fire station. The material in the shop was burnt to ash causing the loss of Rs.13,00,000/-.


    The fire officials also extinguished the fire. In the investigation of police, the witnesses are examined and panchanama was conducted. As per the investigation it is revealed that the said fire accident had occurred due to short circuit. The fire insurance was in force as on the date of accident. The fire officer calculated the damage and issued Fire Attendance Certificate vide Rc.No.28/FR/ MDR/06, DT.8-4-2006 and estimated the damage of Rs.11,00,000/-. The complainant intimated the same to the opposite party No.1 and also opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 had appointed the investigator and assessed the damage of cement, iron, hardware, other goods, furniture of the shop and other decoration also. The said report is filed by opposite party No.2 herein. The opposite party No.2 calculated the damaged stock worth of Rs.16,840/-.


    But according to the complainant, the total loss of stock was worth of Rs.12,23,023/- and before the accident in the shop the total stock worth of Rs.12,75,000/-. Madhira Police conducted panchanama and estimated the loss worth of Rs.12,50,000/-. The complainant submitted application before opposite party No.2, but they rejected the claim on the ground that actual damage is caused only Rs.70,000/- and the claim is made for huge amount. Later, the complainant approached the Ombudsmen at Hyderabad for settlement of the claim, but the same also rejected. Hence, this complaint.

    2. Apart from the complaint, the complainant also filed affidavit, reiterating the contents of the complaint.

    3. On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsels and filed counters.

    4. In the counter of opposite party No.1, the averments made in the complaint are totally denied. It is further submitted that there is no question of the deficiency on the part of opposite party No.1 and they are no way concerned regarding the payment and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

    5. Opposite party No.2 also filed counter and denied all the averments made in the complaint. It is further contended by opposite party No.2 that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and without producing any documentary evidence, the value of the stock lying in the shop as on the date of fire accident, the complainant cannot nourish any grievance against the opposite party No.2 and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,356

    Default Andhra Bank

    M/s.Vani Traders, rep. By its Proprietor by name Nalla

    Srinivasa Rao, s/o.Venkata Rama Rao, age: 42 years,

    shop No.18, Club complex, Madhira Mandal, Khammam

    District.

    …Complainant

    and



    1. Andhra Bank, Madhira branch, rep. By its Branch Manager, Branch office, Madhira.



    2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. By its Branch Manager,

    Branch office, 1-7-70, Madhucan complex, Jublipura,

    Khammam Town and District.

    …Opposite parties.




    O R D ER





    1. This complaint is filed u/s.12-A of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is the proprietor of M/s.Vani Traders and he is doing a retail and wholesale business like iron and hardware items and also some house items. He applied bank loan for development of his business in Andhra Bank, Madhira branch. On 2-2-2005 he availed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from opposite party No.1 and spent the said amount towards purchase of additional items of iron and hardware items.


    As per the advice of opposite party No.1, he had insured his business and other goods in the shop with opposite party No.2. On 6-4-2005 he had taken shopkeepers fire insurance policy over the shop vide policy bearing No.051701/48/06/34/00000026 valid from 6-4-2005 to 5-4-2006 and used to pay the premium amount of Rs.1,746/- to the opposite party No.2. On 13/14-3-2006 in the early hours the shop of the complainant was burnt and all the metals kept in the shop also burnt, due to electric short circuit.


    The complainant intimated the same to the Madhira Police station and also the fire station. The material in the shop was burnt to ash causing the loss of Rs.13,00,000/-. The fire officials also extinguished the fire. In the investigation of police, the witnesses are examined and panchanama was conducted. As per the investigation it is revealed that the said fire accident had occurred due to short circuit. The fire insurance was in force as on the date of accident. The fire officer calculated the damage and issued Fire Attendance Certificate vide Rc.No.28/FR/ MDR/06, DT.8-4-2006 and estimated the damage of Rs.11,00,000/-. The complainant intimated the same to the opposite party No.1 and also opposite party No.2. The opposite party No.2 had appointed the investigator and assessed the damage of cement, iron, hardware, other goods, furniture of the shop and other decoration also.


    The said report is filed by opposite party No.2 herein. The opposite party No.2 calculated the damaged stock worth of Rs.16,840/-. But according to the complainant, the total loss of stock was worth of Rs.12,23,023/- and before the accident in the shop the total stock worth of Rs.12,75,000/-. Madhira Police conducted panchanama and estimated the loss worth of Rs.12,50,000/-. The complainant submitted application before opposite party No.2, but they rejected the claim on the ground that actual damage is caused only Rs.70,000/- and the claim is made for huge amount. Later, the complainant approached the Ombudsmen at Hyderabad for settlement of the claim, but the same also rejected. Hence, this complaint.

    2. Apart from the complaint, the complainant also filed affidavit, reiterating the contents of the complaint.

    3. On receipt of the notice, the opposite parties No.1 and 2 appeared through their counsels and filed counters.

    4. In the counter of opposite party No.1, the averments made in the complaint are totally denied. It is further submitted that there is no question of the deficiency on the part of opposite party No.1 and they are no way concerned regarding the payment and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

    5. Opposite party No.2 also filed counter and denied all the averments made in the complaint. It is further contended by opposite party No.2 that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and without producing any documentary evidence, the value of the stock lying in the shop as on the date of fire accident, the complainant cannot nourish any grievance against the opposite party No.2 and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

    6. On behalf of the complainant, chief-affidavits filed and the following documents have marked as Exs.A.1 to A.7.

    Ex.A.1 - Attested copy of Panchanama, dt.14-3-2006

    Ex.A.2 - Attested copy of List of the material before the

    Fire Accident



    Ex.A.3 - Attested copy of letter addressed to opposite party No.2

    by complainant , dt.9-8-2006



    Ex.A.4 - True copy of Fire Attendance Certificate, dt,8-4-2006

    Ex.A.5 - Attested copy of claim form, dt.8-9-2006.

    Ex.A.6 - Acknowledgments Nos.(2),

    Ex.A.7 - Letter addressed to the complainant by

    opposite party No.1.



    7. On the other hand the opposite party No.1 filed chief-affidavit.

    8. On behalf of opposite party No.2, the following documents have been marked as Exs.B.1 to B.5.

    Ex.B.1 - Copy of policy

    Ex.B.2 - Survey report, dt.18-6-2006

    Ex.B.3 - Letter, dt.16-8-2006

    Ex.B.4 - Letter addressed by the complainant, dt.9-8-2006

    Ex.B.5 - Photos taken at the place of accident.

    9. Heard both sides. Perused the oral and documentary evidence. Upon which the point that arose for consideration is,

    1. Whether the complainant is entitled to claim damages

    caused in the accident?



    2. To what relief?

    Points No.1 and 2:

    10. The case of the complainant is that he is running retail and wholesale business like iron and hardware items, electrical and also house material and taken insurance from the opposite party No.2, which was valid from 6-4-2005 5-4-2006 and used to pay an amount of Rs.1,746/- as premium. So far as taking of policy is concerned, it is not in dispute the other aspects of the complainant that on 13/14-3-2006 in the early hours, the shop was burnt due to electrical short circuit and sustained damage to a tune of Rs.12,23,023/-.


    That on his complaint, the S.H.O., Madhira conducted investigation, examined witnesses and estimated the damage worth of Rs.12,50,000/- are all denied. The next contention of the complainant that the opposite party No.2 had appointed official surveyor, who collected all the records of Commercial tax and income tax returns and bank statement and verified the opening and closing stocks and identified the stock damage, to a tune of Rs.12,89,413/- and damage caused is Rs.26,840/- are also denied. The opposite party No.2 rejected the claim, due to the condition that there is violation of shopkeepers fire insurance policy.

    11. On the other hand it is the case of opposite party No.2 that the claim of the complainant is exorbitant and not supported by the evidence regarding the damage caused in the accident. It is further denied by the opposite party No.2 that the official surveyor assessed the damage for Rs.12,89,413/-. The said report is filed. The claim of the complainant has not supported by any valid reasons.


    It is the case of opposite party No.2 that the claim of the complainant is rejected on the ground that the complainant has violated the terms and conditions of the shopkeepers fire accident policy. Either in the counter or during the course of arguments, it is not made clear which condition of shopkeepers fire accident policy is violated by the complainant. It is also not revealed in the letter of opposite party No.2, which is marked as Ex.A.5. It is mentioned in Ex.A.5 that the confidential report and loss cannot be ascertained by the complainant. On the other hand the opposite party No.2 had appointed official surveyor, who has visited the place of accident and filed report, dt.18-6-2006, which is marked as Ex.B.2. It is coming from the custody of opposite party No.2.

    12. On careful perusal of Ex.B.2, it is made clear that before assessing the said damage caused in the accident, the surveyor verified the stock and concluded that at the time of fire accident, the stocks were verified and gave details of the stock maintained by the complainant. The fire accident is said to have taken place and damage caused to a tune of Rs.2,49,880.40/-. This document is coming from the custody of opposite party No.2. Ex.B.2 is the relevant and important piece of document. It is a crucial document. A positive inference can be drawn out of this document. This document is outcome of investigation made by the official surveyor by name G.V.Vasantha Rao appointed by opposite party No.2. This document therefore can safely believed to estimate the actual damage caused to the property involved in the accident.


    The surveyor report is an important document and it cannot be brushed aside. According to this document, an amount of Rs.2,49,880.40 ps. is said to have been caused damage to the property of the complainant in the fire accident. Basing on the report of the official surveyor of opposite party No.2, the complainant is entitled to the amount of Rs.2,49,880.40 PS. In this case the complainant has taken the insurance of opposite party No.2 and assured amount is Rs.3,00,000/- as described in the policy marked as Ex.B.1, which is within the limits of the sum assured. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is fit to be allowed.

    13. In the result, the complaint is allowed. Opposite party No.2 is directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,49,880.40 (Rupees two lakhs, forty nine thousand, eight hundred and eight and forty paise) together with interest at 9% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of deposit. The opposite party No.2 is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the litigation. So far as the claim against the opposite party No.1 is concerned, it is dismissed as it is a proforma party and the complainant is nothing to do with the opposite party No.1.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2

    Unhappy asasa

    sir i am doing a part job in internet shop i had 16 years ...i am living in bigfathers house,so i didn't had any doctument to open bank accont,but i want to open account to save my montly salary money,how can i open accont in account ?can i provied BSNL bill or current bill ?for proof my big father will keep signeture he had account in andhar bank for 10 years, plz healp to open account

+ Submit Your Complaint
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Andhra bank
    By Unregistered in forum Fixed Deposit
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-27-2013, 07:27 PM
  2. Andhra Bank
    By Unregistered in forum Banking
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-20-2010, 09:44 PM
  3. Andhra Pragati Grameena Bank
    By Sidhant in forum Banking
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-29-2009, 09:50 PM
  4. Andhra Bank, Atmakur
    By Advocate.sonia in forum Judgments
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-02-2009, 05:11 PM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-02-2009, 09:20 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •