State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Branch Manager, Lic Of India vs Smt. Bayani Mallika Behera on 24 May, 2022
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ODISHA,
CUTTACK
FIRST APPEAL NO.108 OF 2014
(Form an order dated 21.01.20214 passed by the District Commission, Bhadrak in C.D.59 of
2012)
The Branch Manager,
L.I.C. of India, Bhadrak
At/Po/Dist: Bhadrak ........ Appellant.
Vrs.
1.Smt. Bayani Behera
W/O Rama Chandra Behera
President Bania Sahi S.H.G.
2. Smt. Mallika Behera
W/O Sri Fakira Mohan Behera
Secretary, Bania S.H.G
Both SL. No.1& 2 are residents of
Bania Sahi ( jaynagar )
Po: Dhamnagar Block colony
Via/PS: Dhamnagar , District : Bhadrak
3. Branch Manager, UCO Bank,
Dhamnagar Branch,
At/PO/PS: Damager,
District Bhadrak ......... Respondents
For the appellant : Umakanta Mishra,Advocate
For the respondent: None.
P R E S E N T: THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DR. D.P.CHOUDHURY, J, PRESIDENT
And
Mr. P.K.Prusty, MEMBER
And
Miss. S.L.Pattnaik, MEMBER
DATED THE 24TH May 2022
ORDER
Miss Sudhira Laxmi Pattnaik Member This appeal has been directed against the order dtd.21.01.2014 passed by the Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bhadrak in C.D. case No.59 of 2012, allowing the complaint case on contest by directing the opposite party No.1, Branch Manager, LIC of India,Bhadrak Branch to issue policy bonds in favour of the complainant from the date of receipt of premium amount in -2- shape of Demand draft to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainants within 30 days from the date of receipt of the order and further directing to receive the premiums from the complainants during the intervening period without any fine for their deficiency in service and negligence in duty. In spite of notice respondent did not remain present to adjourned the matter .
2. For the sake of convenience, in order to avoid confusion and for proper appreciation, the parties are being referred to as they have been arranged in the complaint case.
3. The factual matrix of the case of the complainants are that for the development of financial status, eleven numbers of ladies have, constituted a Self Help Group (SHG) in the name and style of "Bania Sahi" self Help group, where the complainant no.1 was the President & complainant no.2 was the Secretary.
4. It is alleged by the complainants that, they had applied for financial loan from the opposite party no.2 i.e. UCO Bank who had sanctioned loan in favour of eleven members of the said SHG group. It is alleged by the -3- complainants are that, while sanctioning loan, the Opposite party no.2 being the corporate agent of opposite party no.1, had requested the said members of the SHG groups to buy policies in their favour. As per the request of OP No.2, the SHG groups filled up proposal forms and accordingly paid premium for Rs.31,784/- on 08.07.2010 to OP No.1 through opposite party No.2 vide Demand Draft bearing No.COD/13/328208 amounting to Rs.53,462/- (Rs.21,678/- against premium of other loanees). Thereafter, although the opposite party no.2 sent the amount along with proposal forms to OP No.1, but no policy bond was received by the insured. It is further alleged by the complainants that, in spite of several approach to the OP No.1 & 2, they did not pay any heed.
5. Finding no other resort, being aggrieved, the complainants filed a complaint case bearing No.59/2012 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,Bhadrak, alleging deficiency in service and negligence in duty on the part of the opposite parties.
6. Upon notice being served, the opposite parties appeared before the District Forum,Bhadrak and filed their respective written version. The opposite party no.1 Branch -4- Manager,LIC filed written version denying the allegations made by the complainants.
7. According to O.P No.1, the UCO Bank(OP No.2) is a corporate agent of LIC(OP No.1) and that opposite party No.1 has appointed financial services Executives to liason with each and every UCO Bank for procurement of new business. It is further averred that, the opp.party no.2 has deposited Rs.53,462.00 on dtd.09.07.2010 vide D.D. No. 328208 with a list of names for some proposals and renewal premiums with certain amounts against each person but strangly in the said list the names of present complainants are not available . It is also averred that, as per the list available the policy bonds and premium receipts are issued against each amount as per record.If the policy bonds are not received by the concerned UCO Bank, Dhamnagar ( O.P No.2).The O.P No.2 should have complained or brought to the notice of this O.P No.1 within a month but no complaint has been lodged by the UCO Bank , Dhamnagar ( O.P No.2) before this O.PNo.1 during the financial year 2010-11 .
8 It is also averred that the OP No.1 in the meanwhile has directed its new proposal acceptance and issuing policy bonds section to search out and to verify the -5- policy numbers of life assured in connection with the complaint of complainants and if traced out in between this OP No.1 has undertaken to issue policy bonds. On the whole according to it, the OP no.1 has not committed any negligence in his duty and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
9. The opposite party no.2, i.e. UCO Bank filed its written version denying the allegations made by the complainants. According to it, the OP No.2 which is a Nationalized commercial Bank, is the corporate agent of OP No.1. It is averred that the OP No.2 advanced a loan to one lady SHG named "Bania Sahi" SHG in July 2010 and that to secure the life of the loanee members and the loan of the said SHG, itself has advised the SHG to buy life insurance policies for them for a better tomorrow. 10 It is further stated by O.P No.2 that after duly convinced, the present complainants along with other nine members filed up and executed the proposal form of LIC and a sum of Rs.31,784/- was debited to their loan account and a demand draft of said money has been sent to OP No.1 along with the duly filled up proposal forms. It is also contended by OP No.2 that the OP no.1 after receiving the DD sent by the -6- OP No.2 also encased the amount of Rs.53,462 including premium money in respect of other loanees on dated-12-07- 2010 to their account .It is further averred that the Complainants met O.P No.2 several times and alleged non receipt of their policy bonds. The OP No.2 informed about the matter to OP No.1 over telephone and thereafter sent a registered letter to him on the ground of non-receipt of policy bonds of the complainants. But the Op no.1 has neither replied to the letter dtd.09.11.2011 nor has issued the policy bonds to the complainants. On the whole, it is submitted by OP No.2 that OP No.1 is only responsible for non-issuance of policy bonds to the complainants and the Op no.2 is not responsible for the same and prayed for dismissal of the case against OP No.2.
11. The learned District Forum appreciating the pleadings and documentary evidence on record allowed the complaint case on contest against OP No.1 by directing the opposite party No.1 LIC to issue policy bonds in favour of the complainant from the date of receipt of premium amount in shape of D/D and to pay compensation of Rs.5000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.1000/- to the complainants within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and further -7- directing to receive premiums from the complainants during the intervening period without any fine for their deficiency in service and negligence in duty .
12. Being aggrieved by the said findings of the District Forum, the OP No.1 as Appellant preferred the present appeal contending that, the order passed by the learned District Forum is erroneous and contrary to law and that the learned District Forum has not properly evaluated the materials on record and passed the impugned order in a wrong way. It is also pleaded by the OP No.1 that the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum is illegal,improper and violative of the provisions of insurance law as well as the provisions of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
.13. It is also contended that the learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the fact that unless proposal form is submitted along with the required first premium amount, no insurance policy can be issued in favour of any one and that in the present case the OP No.2 is relying on a photo copy of list of members of "Bania Sahi' SHG group, which is actually not submitted to the OP No.1/Appellant. It is further submitted that when no deposit has been made in the name -8- of complainants they can not be considered as consumer. Neither the complainant nor the OP No.2 has produced the proof of any acknowledgement of the OP No.1 in support of submission of list of Bania sahi SHG and proposal papers for insurance. It is further alleged that deposit of First premium and the proposal papers is the basic need for acceptance of insurance policy which has not been done in the present case. When the issue of the policy is non-existent for non- payment of the first premium and non-submission of proposal papers, the payment of the premium for the intervening period does not arise for that the learned District Forum has committed gross error in directing the OP No.1 to receive the premium for the intervening period as well as awarding cost and compensation against OP No.1 without any fault on their part .learned counsel for the OP No.1/appellant than argued that the order of the District Forum bears no legal existence and prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
14. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the DFR and impugned order. On perusal of the record it is found that the complainants have filed statement of account against their A/C No. 0599061000601,for the -9- period from 14.03.2010 to 07.11.2013 which shows that Rs.31,784/- has been debited to their account on 08.07.2010 for payment to OP No.1 LIC towards Insurance premium of policy The OP No.2 UCO Bank in his version admitted that the complainants along with 9 members of the SHG ( Baria) filled up and executed a proposal forms of LIC and a sum of Rs.31,784/- was debited to their loan account and a demand draft of said money has been sent to O.P No.1along with duly filled in proposal forms. The O.P No.1 encashed the amount along with another sum of premium money in respect of another self help group, totaling Rs.53,462/- on 12.07.2010. Hence, admittedly, transaction of Rs. 53,462/- including the premium money of Rs. 31,784/- of the complainant between the OP No.2 and OP No.1 is not under dispute. On further perusal of the copies of bank papers submitted by O.P No.2 available and pleading of the parties it transpires that the O.P No.2 Bank has not sent any proposal form of Complainant to OP No.1 LIC in corporating the name of complainants. Also OP No.1 has taken plea that the names of the complainants are not found in the list of names for some proposal sent by the bank.
-10-15 . On further perusal of the versions of O.P No.1 and O.P No.2 it transpires that the O.P No.1 has submitted a computer generated list from where it is clear that Rs. 53642/- has been utilized as premium and renewals in respect of other persons of the SHG but not for the present complainants as D.D nos differ . On the other hand the OP No.2 bank in his version has not explained about the total DD amount of Rs. 53462/- in proper manner and attached a hand written slip where it could be seen that name of the present complainants are not there . Through the O.P No.2 Bank has stated in his version that he has sent proposal form in the name of complainants and other 9 members of the SHG but has not submitted copies of proposal form qua the O.PNo.1 LIC copy of which ought to have retained with him being a corporate agent of the LIC. Therefore in view of the above Rs. 31784/- out of total amount of Rs. 53462/- has been utilized by the OP No.1 LIC in respect of 9 members of the other SHG towards their premium and renewal amount and not for the premium amount of present complainants. The OP No.2 who is nationalized bank and corporate agent of the OP.NO.1 is discharging the public duties and not -11- supposed to act like submitting unclear hand written list instead the copy of the individual proposal forms along with the version to justify the total deducted amount of Rs. 31784/-. Thus, from the above facts and circumstances it is cleared that although the complainants had paid the premium amount which was deducted from their account and they duly filled the proposal form but the OP.No. 2 bank has not send the same to OP No.1 for which the OP No. 1 could not issue policy bonds in favour of the complainants which clearly shows that the OP No.2 Bank has committed gross negligence in his duty which clearly proves that the O.P No.2 Bank has committed deficiency in his service. It is settled in law that mere deposit of premium will not entitled the insured to get policy unless proposal form are submitted. As O.Pno.2 failed to prove sending of proposal form of complaints, the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P No.1 is hardly proved. Hence ordered:
ORDER The appeal is partly allowed on contest. The impugned order is modified to the extent that the OP No.2 / Respondent No.3 Bank is directed to submit the proposal forms in respect of -12- the present complainants to O.P.No.1within 30 days from the date of passing of this order and further on receipt of the same the OP No.1 would issue the policy bonds in respect of the Complainants within 15 days thereafter from the date of receipt of the proposal form to Complainant.. Failure on the part of the OP.No.2 / Respondent No.3 bank to submit the proposal form of the complainants to OP.No.1 within the period as stated above he is liable to refund the proportionate amount of premium of Rs. 31,784/- to the complainants along with interest @ 9% per annum to the complainants SHG bank account from the date of impugned order till date of payment . The O.P No.2 / Respondent No.3 further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/-(Rupees five thousand) for harassment and mental agony to complainant and Rs. 1,000/-(Rupees one thousand) only for litigation cost failing which the complainants are at liberty to realize the same with interest at the rate of 9% per annum thereon from date of this order till date of payment . No costs.
Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. No cost. Free copies be supplied to the parties if applied for. Send back the DFR along with copy of this order to the learned District Forum forthwith.
(Dr. D.P.Choudhury,J) President (P.K.Prusty) (Member) (S.L.Pattnaik) (Member) On further perusal of the record it is also found that the OP no.2 had sent a letter on 09.11.2011 to OP No.1 LIC through registered post stating that the complainants along with other borrowers of the bank faced problem to deposit the next annual/half yearly premium in absence of LIC policy/money receipt or cover note. In the said letter also it has been clearly mentioned that one SHG "Bania Sahi" and some other borrowers have not received their policies even though payment of Rs.53,462/- vide D/D No.0439086 dtd.10.07.2010 sent to OP No.1. The letter dtd.07.08.2013 shows that the Manager (C & HPF) LIC, in his reply stated that, the Bhadrak LIC branch office has informed that the challan of deposit ( as mentioned by the complainant - the list of depositors) is destroyed along with the old records at the end of the financial year. Since, the date of alleged deposit is made on 09.07.2010, the challan of deposit is due to destruction after the end of the financial year 2010-11, which is much prior to the institution of the present complaint. When the lists is not with OP No.1, he can not be presume that Complainants have not filed proposal forms and not paid money for first premium, which indicates callousness of OP No.1. The opposite party No.1 LIC in his written statement although stated that, he has directed the concerned Section ( Next proposal acceptance and issuing policy bonds sections) to search out and verify the policy numbers of life assured in connection with the complainants and to issue policy bonds, if not practically issued, but did not take any steps.
Hence, from the above facts and circumstances, it is cleared that although the complaints had paid the 1 st premium towards issuance of policy bond and filed up the proposal form, the appellant had not issued any policy bonds in their favour which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party no.1.
In view of the above, this Commission is of the view that, the learned District Forum has rightly passed the impugned order after going through the materials available in the record. It needs no interference. Therefore, the impunged order of the District Forum is confirmed and appeal stands dismissed without cost.
Free copies be supplied to both the parties if applied for.
Send back the DFR along with copy of this order to the learned District Forum forthwith.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik) Member F.A.122 of 2017 This F.A. is of the year 2017.
On 24.05.2021,23.08.2021,7.12.2021 appeal was listed for hearing but due to non appearance of respondent matter was adjourned. On 07.12.2021 this Commission directed to list the matter on 06.04.2022 for hearing. On 06.04.2022 counsel for appellant was present and argued the matter but due to non-appearance of respondent matter again fixed to today i.e. 11.04.2022. Today counsel for appellant is present and files the written note of submission but respondent is absent on repeated call.
Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the DFR, written note of submission filed by counsel for appellant.
The case of the complainant is that he took the electric connection to his house in the name of his mother for domestic use vide consumer No.911125110136 and was paying the electric bill as per meter reading till August,2012, thereafter bill was issued on an average basis and units calculated for the same was increased time to time from 99 units to 360 units without any reason. Inspite of his complaint dtd.12.08.2015,9.11.2015 and 4.12.2015 no step was taken. As such he filed the complaint case alleging deficiency in service for not issuing correct bill and arbitrarily issuing bill on average units basis which amounts to deficiency in service and with a prayer to direct the opposite/appellant to issue correct bill and pay compensation and litigation cost to him.
The Opp.party appeared before District Forum,Bolangir but did not file any written version. On 19.1.2017 learned District Forum,Bolangir disposed of the matter, directing the op.party to revise the electricity bill of the complainant as per meter reading and to pay Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards cost and compensation within one month from the date of receipt of the order, challenging the said order the appellant has preferred this appeal.
The counsel for appellant submits that the electricity bill was prepared on actual consumption basis upto August,2012. Thereafter, during August 2012 on verification, the meter was declared to be defective as such average bill 99 units was raised from September,2012 to April,2013, then average bill 120 units, 200 units and 360 units per month were raised subject to revision. As the average consumption bill was on lower side the consumer did not allow the opp.party to replace the meter inspite of several attempts.
Regulation 91 and 92 of OERC Distribution ( Condition of supply) Code,1998, speaks that it is the consumer to approach the authority/licensee in the event of any disputes regarding correctness of the bill, thereafter if the licensee finds the bill to be erroneous a revised bill shall be furnished to consumer indicating a revised bill.
The counsel for appellant further submits that the complainant has never approached the opp.party to revise the bill and it has not received any complaint rather due to defective meter opp.party insisted to change the meter. The consumer has not made any payment being defaulter Since February,2015 and a total outstanding dues comes to Rs.41,037.87 upto December,2016. The defective meter was replaced with a new meter in May,2020. Thereafter bills are being raised on the basis of meter reading till date but the consumer is not paying the arrear dues and the current energy bills and till March,2022 the total outstanding dues pending against the complainant upto the month of March,2022 amounts to Rs.1,27,569/- and a chronic defaulter throughout the years. In the meantime the opp.party/appellant has already issued the revised bill for the period August,2012 to May,2020. The energy bill amount for the period August,2012 to May,2020 has not been paid by the consumer. After installation of new meter in May,2020 the consumer is also not paying the energy bill as per the new meter reading.
We perused the DFR. Learned District Forum vide its order dtd.16.03.2016 has passed order restraining the opp.party to disconnect the electric line of complainant, the said interim order was extended to till the disposal of complaint case 16 of 2016 and the opp.party has not disconnected the electric line to the house of consumer. The only grievance of complainant is to revise the bills. As per the Regulation 91 & 92 of Supply Code it is the consumer to approach the authority for revision of the energy bill. From the DFR we found the complainant has made a representation to opp.party requesting to provide correct bill and till then billing staff are to be directed to collect bills on average of 99 units per months as fixed previously. Copy of the said representation has been received by the office of opp.party on 12.08.2015.
The counsel of appellant further submits that as per Regulation 97 of the supply code, the electric department can raise bill on average basis in case of non availability of actual meter reading, which is subject to revision after the availability of meter reading, as such issuance of bills on average basis is not a deficiency in service and in the present case the consumer has not paid the said amount.
We found the complainant has not prayed for any specific amount for compensation in his complaint petition but the learned Forum below has awarded Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards the compensation and litigation cost. We fail to understand how and on the basis of document which documents the learned Forum below came to a finding that the act of Opp.Party amounts to deficiency in service and awarded Rs.50,000/- to complainant towards compensation and cost of litigation. Learned counsel for appellant submitted that, on verification it is found that the meter was defective after August,2012 and accordingly average bills were raised and there is a provision under Regulation 97 of Supply code the department can raise the average bill in case of non-availability of meter, as such question of deficiency in service on the part of opp.party does not arise. The opp.party could have brought these provisions to the knowledge of learned District Forum by way of written version, due to non-filing of written version by the opp.party learned Forum below came to the conclusion that there is a deficiency in service on the part of opp.party. In our opinion, for non filing of written version in a case by a party or for the inaction and latches of a employee/officer of the department, liability can not be fixed on the department for payment of compensation or cost, which may cause extra financial burden on general consumers who are paying electricity dues regularly. Responsibility should be fixed on the person who found to be guilty in discharging his duty. In the present case we found the consumer is not a bonafied person and also not paying even current dues intentionally after installation of new meter.
In view of such fact we set-aside the order of learned District Forum,Bolangir dtd.19.1.2017 and remand the matter to District Commission,Bolangir for fresh adjudication of dispute, giving chance of hearing to both the parties and allowing them to file documents, evidence if any to the extent issuance of revised bill by the opp.party to consumer till installation of new meter within 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. We make it clear that from the date of installation of new meter the opp.party may realize the outstanding bill amount from the consumer as per the meter reading. If the consumer files an application before the opp.party praying for instalments for payment of outstanding electric bill i.e. for the period from the date of installation of new meter to till March,2022 the opp.party shall allow the application, and allow the consumer to pay the outstanding dues phase wise. The opp.party is directed not to take any coercive action for non-payment of bill for the period August,2012 to till installation of new meter i.e. March,2020 till disposal of the case before learned District Forum,Bolangir.
Send the DFR forthwith.
(Mr.D.K.Mohapatra) Presiding Member (Miss.S.L.Pattnaik) Member F.A.428 OF 2006 This matter is of the year 2006. On 31.05.2006 appeal was admitted. Notice was sufficient against the respondent on 14.08.2020. As per the Section 19 A of C.P.Act,1986, appeal memo has to be disposed off within 90 days from the date of its admission. In the meantime 16 years has been elapsed but appeal memo is still pending for hearing as such we heard the matter today. Inspite of several adjournments respondent was absent. Today respondent is also absent on repeated call as such this appeal is disposed of on merit.
That, the case of the complainant is that he filed a complaint before the forum below alleging that the Op issued bi-monthly bill as per the meter reading and consumption upto August 2004, vide bill dtd.06.07.2004 for Rs.251/- and the same was deposited by complainant. OP again issued bill dtd.10.11.2004 for Rs.300/- same was also deposited on 20.11.2004 but the OP mentioned in that bill meter changed on 25.10.2004(meter No.2000056). Again OP issued bill dtd.10.01.2005 for Rs.5924/- which is illegal.Challenging the inaction of opp.parties the complainant filed complaint petition before the learned District Forum, claiming Rs.30,000/- towards compensation for physical and mental agony and Rs.1000/- towards litigation charges.
On receipt of notice the opp.party no.2 filed written version on 28.10.2005 stating that after receipt of complaint the opp.party has rectified the faulty bill and revised bill served to complainant vide letter no.315 dtd.16.07.2015 the complainant has not paid the said amount and electric line has not been disconnected to the house of complainant. The opp.party in their written version has stated that wrongly the computer agency has shown that meter was changed on 25.10.2004,meter is 2000056 initial reading 000002. The complainant filed an affidavit dtd.5.10.2005 stating that his meter has not been replaced and the meter no.2000056 as mentioned in his bill is belongs to one ch.Ramesh Reddy consumer No. D/12 C-319/1 having terminal seal 068991. During pendency of complaint petition before forum below learned District Forum passed an order directing to opp.parties not to disconnect the electricity line to the complainant's house. After hearing the case, learned Forum below disposed of the matter directing the opp.parties, Southco,Nabarangpur to pay compensation of Rs.2000/- to complainant, and same be adjusted towards his electricity dues.
Challenging the said order the appellants have preferred the present appeal.
The counsel for appellant submits that as per the provision of law the complainant has not filed any representation before the authority with admitted dues and the learned forum below has not given any specific reasons about arriving at such a conclusion regarding non rectification of bill. The learned forum below though has taken note the letter dated 16.07.2005 which speaks about the revision of the bills but no reason has been assigned to discard the letter as filed by the appellants before the forum below. The impugned order also does not speak that, the complainant has disputed the revised bill. Hence in the absence any reason assigning non-acceptance of revised bill/letter, the conclusion of the learned forum below regarding harassment is based on without any materials and as such not sustainable in law. We have perused the appeal memo and the DFR, the appellant at paragraph 2 of its appeal memo has categorically stated that due to wrong feeding by computer agency the bill was prepared and appellants have no hand and it is not possible on the part of the appellant to check each and every bill personally, which itself proves there is a mistake on the part of opp.parties for not scrutinizing the bills before issuing to consumers and that to mistake also committed by the person who was in charge of feeding to computer mentioning the meter has been changed. The said mistake is neither intentional nor deliberate and said mistake has been rectified/modified and intimated vide letter dtd.16.07.2005 and the bill was revised to rs.1089.50 and was remain unpaid upto month of June,2005.
After perusal of records, we hold that issuance of defective bill by appellants to consumers and thereby threatening to disconnect the electricity line for non payment of said amount is deficiency in service on the part of appellants and said action of appellants forced the consumer to file complaint case before learned District Forum to get an interim order.
In view of such fact we found the learned forum below has rightly passed the impugned order, we confirm the order of District Forum and dismissed the appeal.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No cost.
(Mr.D.K.Mohapatra) Presiding Member (Miss.S.L.Pattnaik) Member F.A.312/2013 That the grounds made by the appellant in the appeal petition are vague, indistinct and appear to be a product of suppression and distortion of material facts as such, the appeal petition is liable to be dismissed.
That, the respondent no.1 is the complainant and filed consumer case against the appellant/Branch Manager,Punjab National Bank and respondent no.2/Branch Manager,UCO Bank,Kuanpal for deficiency in service and in- action of both applicant and respondent no.2 not to credit the cheque amount of Rs.75,000.00 in complainant's savings bank account maintained in UCO Bank, Kunapal, Cuttack and to direct pay Rs.75,000/- alongwith interest @ 10 % from the date of the deposit of the cheque i.e. from 12.10.2010 till realization and cost and compensation of Rs.50,000.00 to the respondent no.1/ complainant for deficiency in service and mental agony and harassment.
That both the appellant and respondent no.1-Banks appeared and filed their respective versions and admitted to have misplaced the cheque bearing No.926304 drawn on Punjab National Bank,Paikarapur,Nischantakoile amounting of Rs.75,000.00 (Rupees Seventy Five thousand) only of the complainant/respondent no.1. The Ld. D.C.D.R.F.,Cuttack after hearing from the both side, given findings that it is a clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the appellant banks and is liable to pay the loss of money bears in cheque of amount of Rs.75,000/- alongwith interest @ 9 % and compensation of Rs.5000/- and cost of litigation Rs.2000/- to the complainant/respondent no.1. That, due to negligent and in proper service of both the appellant-bank, the complainant/respondent no.1 has harassed and the appellant-bank, is a public sectors bank, it should have provided proper service to their customers and due to the poor performance of service, the complainant/respondent no.1 has not got the cheque amount of Rs.75,000.00 and could not able to utilize the said money in his need.
That, the complainant/respondent no.1 had deposited the cheque No.926304 amounting of Rs.75,000/- in his savings bank account No.5845 maintained by the respondent no.2 for credited in his account and thus the complainant has rendered service hired and in spite of repeated request and letter to the appellant did not respond the request of the complainant and did not take necessary steps to credit the cheque amount of Rs.75,000.00 in the complainant account which amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the bank i.e. the appellant bank and so also the appellant who has admitted to have receive the cheque from the respondent no.2 the bank has under obligation to credit the said amount in the account of the complainant and since the same has not credited and its amount to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant-bank.
That, it is settled principle of law reported in 1(2000) CPJ 144 wherein Supreme Court considering the special nature of the relationship between a bank and a customer held " there is always an element of trust between the bank and its customers, the bank's business depend upon the trust. In these two complaints the appellant/Opp.party bank had not discharged their duty properly, where as it was negligent towards grievance of the complainant which amounts to the clear deficiency of service."
That, in another decision reported in 2004(1) CPR 575 wherein it is held, " a consistent view that loss of cheque by the bank or its agent as has happened in this case, was a deficiency in service on the part of the bank and the bank is liable to make good the loss equivalent to the value of the cheques.
Another decision reported in II (2005) CPJ 72 it is held that cheque lost courier of bank and bank is liable for negligence of agent and bank is liable make good the loss equivalent to valid cheques. It is also further held that Section 3 of the C.P.Act 1986 clearly state that provisions of this Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other Act and the complainant can not be ousted from filling the complaint under C.P.Act and the complainant is not obliged to pursue the other remedy.
Another decision reported 1(2005) CPJ 661 where in it is held that impalement of Drawer as party is not necessary party as he has no role to play after issuance of cheque and lost by Bank.
Another decision reported in 1(2004) CPJ 496 it is held that safe collection of cheques entrusted to a bank by its consumer is the contractual delegation of the bank. If the bank fails to collect the amount of the cheques and takes the plea that such cheques were lost in transit, it is not absolved of his obligation to reimburse the consumer for the loss caused to him by non-collection of the amount of the cheques.(State Bank of India-Versus-M/s. Rashriya Ispat Udgag, Ambala,1993(ii) CLT 19(NC). The amount deposited with the Forum be released in favour of the consumer. Another decision reported in 1(2000) CPJ 144 where in it is held that bank has not discharged their duty properly, whereas it was negligence and carelessness towards the grievance on the complainant/respondent no.1 which amount to clear deficiency of service hence opposite party liable to pay cheque amount alongwith interest and other relief.
That, in reply to the averments made in para 5 to 6 of the complaint petition, this opp.party no.5 to 6 of the complaint petition, this opp.party No.1 humbly submits that the complainant had presented the aforesaid cheque on 12.10.2010 which was deposited by him in his S.B. A/C. After receiving the cheque amounting of Rs.75,000/- from the complainant, the opp.party no.1 had immediately sent the said cheque to Punjab National Bank, Paikarapur, namely opp.party no. 2 on the same day i.e. 12.10.2010 for collection of the aforesaid cheque amount. From the aforesaid fact it is evident that this opp.party no.1 has not committed any deficiency while rendering service. That the averments made in paragraph 13 of the complaint petition is untrue to the effet that the opposite party no.2 has already paid Rs.4,468.00 (Four thousand four hundred sixty eight) only to the complainant service bank i.e. opposite party No.1 as per the order dated 27.07.2011 passed by the banking Ombudsman complaint no.0890/2010-11.
That, the averments made in paragraph 14 of the complaint petition is not correct in reference to the present opposite party no.2 hence the contesting opposite party objects the same. It is relevant t mentioned here that the opposite no.2 inadvertently misplaced the said cheque and tried level best though a comprehensive search in the bank but on failure to retrieve the cheque, contacted the drawer of the cheque by physical meeting in several occasion besides telephonic calls to provide a duplicate cheque. But the drawer of the cheque took several time avoiding to provide a duplicate said cheque. However, the drawer of the cheque is still assuring to opposite party no.2 to provide a duplicate cheque.
During the course of hearing counsel for appellant filed the account status of Rajendra Dash showing at the time of presentation of cheque there was no sufficient balance in the account of the person who issued the cheque in favour of complainant. The counsel for respondent submits that due to misplace of the said cheque the complainant could not realize the said cheque amount from the person who issued the cheque and has lost a scope to file a case U/S-138 of NI Act. Counsel for respondent filed citations.
We have gone through the records, and written statement filed by OP No.1 & 2, no where the OP No.1 & 2 have stated that during the relevant time Rs.75,000/- was not available in the account of Rajendra Dash the person who issued the cheque in favour of complainant, learned Forum below was not aware of such fact for which Forum below directed the OP N.2 to pay Rs.75,000/- with interest 9 % per annum with effect from 12.10.2010 to complainant till date of payment.
During the course of hearing learned counsel for appellant filed the statement of account of the person who issued the cheque in favour of complainant showing sufficient fund was not available in the account during the relevant period, which was not brought to the notice of learned Forum below.
Considering the above facts we hold that the order of learned Forum below directing the opp.prty to pay Rs.75,000/- with interest @ 9 % per annum with effect from 12.10.2010 to till the date of payment to complainant is illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law because of the fact that the bank holds the public money and due to latches of any officer of the bank should not be held responsible and public money should not be wasted. The order of learned Forum below is erroneous and is liable to be set-aside. We found strength as the argument of counsel of respondent that due to negligence of the officer concerned the complainant not able to realize an amount Rs.75,000/- from the person who issued cheque in favour of complainant and if there was no sufficient balance amount in the account of the person who issued the cheque the consumer/complainant could have approached proper court of law to realize the cheque amount and complainant has lost that opportunity due to negligent of the person/officer concern of the bank who was dealing with the matter.
In view of such fact we hold the person/officer who was dealing with the matter and held responsible for misplace of the cheque is negligence in his duty and accordingly we set-aside the order of learned District Foru,Cuttack and direct the appellant bank to give Rs.20,000/- in total towards compensation to the complainant for his suffering and said amount be realized from the officer/person concerned who found to be guilty in misplacing the cheque of complainant. We further direct the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.2,000./- as the cost of litigation to the complainant. The entire mount shall be paid by the opp.party within one month from the date of receipt of this order filing which the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- from his salary.
(Mr.D.K.Mohapatra) Presiding Member (Miss.S.L.Pattnaik) Member F.A.253/2012 None appears on behalf of either of the parties. This is a non put up record since 17.05.2012. In the interest of justice, a fresh notice to be issued to all the parties by office by Regd.Post intimating the next date of hearing.
List this matter on 09.06.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.P.K.Prusty) Presiding Member (Mr.H.K.Mohanty ) Member F.A.265/2012 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. Learned counsel for the respondent is present. Heard in part.
Learned counsel for both the parties undertakes to file written note of submission by the next date of hearing.
List this matter on 29.04.2022 for further hearing.
(Mr.P.K.Prusty) Presiding Member (Mr.H.K.Mohanty ) Member F.A.276/2012 None appears on behalf of either of the parties. This is a non put up record since 05.07.2012. In the interest of justice, a fresh notice to be issued to all the parties by office by Regd.Post intimating the next date of hearing.
List this matter on 09.06.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.P.K.Prusty) Presiding Member (Mr.H.K.Mohanty ) Member F.A.281/2012 None appears on behalf of either of the parties. This is a non put up record since 26.05.2012. In the interest of justice, a fresh notice to be issued to all the parties by office by Regd.Post intimating the next date of hearing.
List this matter on 09.06.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.P.K.Prusty) Presiding Member (Mr.H.K.Mohanty ) Member F.A.285/2012 None appears on behalf of either of the parties. It is submitted at the Bar through V.C. that learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent that the respondent has been elevated from the bench.
It is a non put up record since 29.05.2012. In the interest of justice, a fresh notice to be issued to both the parties by office by Regd.Post intimating the next date of hearing as last chance.
List this matter on 08.06.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.P.K.Prusty) Presiding Member (Mr.H.K.Mohanty ) Member F.A.288/2012 None appears on behalf of either of the parties. It is a non put up record since 29.05.2012. In the interest of justice, a fresh notice to be issued to all the parties by office by Regd.Post intimating the next date of hearing as last chance.
The registry is directed to file tracking report of the notice sent by next date of hearing.
List this matter on 09.06.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.P.K.Prusty) Presiding Member (Mr.H.K.Mohanty ) Member F.A.289/2012 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. None appears on behalf of the respondent. It is a non put up record since 02.07.2012. In the interest of justice, a fresh notice to be issued to all the parties by office by Regd.Post intimating the next date of hearing as last chance.
The registry is directed to file tracking report of the notice sent by next date of hearing.
List this matter on 09.06.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.P.K.Prusty) Presiding Member (Mr.H.K.Mohanty ) Member F.A.294/2012 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. None appears on behalf of the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant undertakes to file appropriate substitution petition on behalf of the appellant.
List this matter on 29.04.2022 for orders.
(Mr.P.K.Prusty) Presiding Member (Mr.H.K.Mohanty ) Member F.A.296/2012 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. None appears on behalf of the respondent. The case was last put up on 18.04.2018. In the interest of justice, a fresh notice to be issued to the sole respondent by office by Regd.Post intimating the next date of hearing as last chance.
The registry is directed to file tracking report of the notice sent by next date of hearing.
List this matter on 08.06.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.P.K.Prusty) Presiding Member (Mr.H.K.Mohanty ) Member F.A.298/2012 None appears on behalf of either of the parties. It is a non put up record since 04.07.2012. In the interest of justice, a fresh notice to be issued to all the parties by office by Regd.Post intimating the next date of hearing as last chance.
The registry is directed to file tracking report of the notice sent by next date of hearing.
List this matter on 08.06.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.P.K.Prusty) Presiding Member (Mr.H.K.Mohanty ) Member F.A.299/2012 Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant is present.
Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent is present.
V.O.S. in F.A. 302/2012. These cases have been posted analogously.
List this matter on 19.04.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.P.K.Prusty) Presiding Member (Mr.H.K.Mohanty ) Member F.A.300/2012 Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant is present.
Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent is present.
V.O.S. in F.A. 302/2012. These cases have been posted analogously.
List this matter on 19.04.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.P.K.Prusty) Presiding Member (Mr.H.K.Mohanty ) Member F.A.301/2012 Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant is present.
Learned counsel on behalf of the respondent is present.
V.O.S. in F.A. 302/2012. These cases have been posted analogously.
List this matter on 19.04.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.P.K.Prusty) Presiding Member (Mr.H.K.Mohanty ) Member F.A.307/2012 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. None appears on behalf of the respondent. It is a non put up record since 28.01.2013. In the interest of justice, a fresh notice to be issued to the respondent by office by Regd.Post intimating the next date of hearing as last chance.
The registry is directed to file tracking report of the notice sent by next date of hearing.
List this matter on 09.06.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.P.K.Prusty) Presiding Member (Mr.H.K.Mohanty ) Member F.A.308/2012 None appears on behalf of either of the parties. This is a non put up record since 08.06.2012. In the interest of justice, a fresh notice to be issued to all the parties by office by Regd.Post intimating the next date of hearing as last chance.
The registry is directed to file tracking report of the notice sent by next date of hearing.
List this matter on 10.06.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.P.K.Prusty) Presiding Member (Mr.H.K.Mohanty ) Member F.A.310/2012 None appears on behalf of either of the parties. This is a non put up record since 16.05.2016. In the interest of justice, a fresh notice to be issued to all the parties by office by Regd.Post intimating the next date of hearing as last chance.
The registry is directed to file tracking report of the notice sent by next date of hearing.
List this matter on 10.06.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.P.K.Prusty) Presiding Member (Mr.H.K.Mohanty ) Member F.A.311/2012 None appears on behalf of either of the parties. This is a non put up record since 11.06.2012. In the interest of justice, a fresh notice to be issued to all the parties by office by Regd.Post intimating the next date of hearing as last chance.
The registry is directed to file tracking report of the notice sent by next date of hearing.
List this matter on 10.06.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.P.K.Prusty) Presiding Member (Mr.H.K.Mohanty ) Member xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx F.A.290/2015 Learned counsel for appellant present and seeks time to file written note of submission.
He also prayed for listing the matter with F.A.305/2015 as those matters are similar.
List this matter on 11.04.2022 for further hearing.
(Mr.D.K.Mohapatra) Member (Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.122/2017 Learned counsel for the appellant is present and prayed two weeks time for filing written note of submission and date chart with latest decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court alongwith affidavit for disconnection of electricity.
List this matter on 11.04.2022 under the heading to be mentioned.
The interim order passed earlier shall continue till the next date.
(Mr.D.K.Mohapatra) Member (Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.300/2017 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. Learned counsel for the respondent is absent Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to file written note of submission with date chart with citations.
List this matter on 09.05.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.D.K.Mohapatra) Member (Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.665/2017 Learned counsel for both the parties are absent. In the meantime, both the parties are directed to file written note of submission.
List this matter on 10.05.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.D.K.Mohapatra) Member (Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.46/2021 Learned counsel for the appellant is present and seeks time to file written note of submission.
Learned counsel for respondent no.1 is present. List this matter on 12.05.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.D.K.Mohapatra) Member (Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.113/2017 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. Issue notice to the respondent in Misc.Case No.100/2022 by Regd.Post with AD fixing 19.05.2022 for hearing.
Requisites be filed within three working days.
(Mr.D.K.Mohapatra) Member (Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.158/2020 Learned counsel for the parties are present and seeks time.
List this matter on 29.04.2022 for orders.
(Mr.D.K.Mohapatra) Member (Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member C.C.09/2019 Learned counsel for the complainant is present. None appears for the OP.
List this matter on 24.06.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.D.K.Mohapatra) Member (Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx F.A.499/2015 Due to technical problem in V.C.,list this matter on 29.06.2022 for hearing.
(Mr.D.K.Mohapatra) Member (Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx C.D.A.344/2005 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. None appears for the respondent.
List this matter on 18.07.2022 for further hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.836/2007 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. None appears for the respondent.
List this matter on 14.07.2022 for further hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.782/2008 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. None appears for the respondent.
List this matter on 11.07.2022 for further hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.547/2014 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. None appears for the respondent.
List this matter on 27.06.2022 for further hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.460/2015 Learned counsel for the appellant is present and submitted that the sole respondent has died.
Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to file a memo in this regard.
List this matter on 14.05.2021 before the National Lok Adalat.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.86/2018 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. None appears for the respondent.
List this matter on 03.08.2022 for further hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.367/2018 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. None appears for the respondent.
List this matter on 04.08.2022 for further hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.842/2012 Learned counsel for the respondent is present. None appears for the appellant.
List this matter on 08.08.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.85/2014 None appears on behalf of either of the parties. List this matter on 08.08.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.36/2015 Learned counsel for the appellant is present on V.C. None appears for the respondent.
List this matter on 10.08.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.178/2017 Learned counsel for both the parties are preset. Hon'ble President is on tour.
List this matter on 10.08.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.390/2017 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. None appears for the respondent.
List this matter on 16.08.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.72/2018 None appears on behalf of either of the parties. List this matter on 16.08.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.76/2018 None appears on behalf of either of the parties. List this matter on 17.08.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.378/2018 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. None appears for the respondent.
List this matter on 17.08.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.399/2018 Learned counsel for the respondent is present. None appears for the appellant.
List this matter on 22.08.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.11/2020 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. None appears for the respondent.
List this matter on 22.08.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.153/2020 Learned counsel for the respondent is present.
None appears for the appellant.
List this matter on 23.08.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.35/2021 Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 to 7 is present.
None appears for the appellant.
List this matter on 23.08.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.36/2021 None appears for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent is present.
List this matter on 23.06.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx F.A.84/2021 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. None appears for the respondent.
Hon'ble President is on tour.
List this matter on 13.07.2022 for further hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member C.D.A.1008/2003 Mr.S.C.Dash,Advocate appears for the appellant and files vaklatnama which is accepted and kept on record.
None appears for the respondent.
Hon'ble President is on tour.
List this matter on 01.06.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member C.D.A.39/2004 None appears on behalf of either of the parties.
Hon'ble President is on tour.
List this matter on 02.06.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.435/2007 Mr.P.K.Tripathy,Advocate appears for the appellant and files vaklatnama which is accepted and kept on record.
None appears for the respondent.
Hon'ble President is on tour.
List this matter on 08.06.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.560/2007 None appears for the appellant.
Learned counsel for respondent no.2 is present.
Hon'ble President is on tour.
List this matter on 08.06.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.479/2008 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. None appears for the respondent.
Hon'ble President is on tour.
List this matter on 09.06.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.480/2008 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. None appears for the respondent.
Hon'ble President is on tour.
List this matter on 09.06.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.879/2008 None appears on behalf of either of the parties.
Hon'ble President is on tour.
List this matter on 13.06.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.904/2008 None appears on behalf of either of the parties.
Hon'ble President is on tour.
List this matter on 13.06.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.525/2009 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. None appears for the respondent.
Hon'ble President is on tour.
List this matter on 16.06.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.529/2009 None appears on behalf of either of the parties.
Hon'ble President is on tour.
List this matter on 16.06.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.440/2016 Learned counsel for the appellant is present. None appears for the respondent.
Hon'ble President is on tour.
List this matter on 25.07.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.484/2016 None appears on behalf of either of the parties.
Hon'ble President is on tour.
List this matter on 25.07.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.514/2017 & F.A.515/2017 None appears on behalf of either of the parties.
Hon'ble President is on tour.
List this matter on 26.07.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik )
Member
F.A.515/2017
V.O.S. dated 14.03.2022 passed in
F.A.514/2017.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik )
Member
F.A.564/2017
None appears on behalf of either of the parties.
Hon'ble President is on tour.
List this matter on 26.07.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.225/2018 None appears for the appellant.
Learned counsel for the respondent is present filed counter affidavit, copy not served on the otherside.
Hon'ble President is on tour.
List this matter on 27.07.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member F.A.310/2018 None appears on behalf of either of the parties.
Hon'ble President is on tour.
List this matter on 27.07.2022 for hearing.
(Miss.S.L.Pattnaik ) Member xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx