State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company Limited vs Ranjit Singh Anand on 25 March, 2013
FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.250 of 2011.
Date of Institution: 03.02.2011.
Date of Decision: 25.03.2013.
United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, SCO NO.123-124,
Sector 17-B, Chandigarh through Sh. Anil Kakkar, Dy. Manager.
.....Appellant.
Versus
1. Ranjit Singh Anand S/o late Sh. Anup Singh, R/o House No.521,
Phase 3-A, Mohali.
2. Joginder Kaur W/o Sh. Ranjit Singh Anand, R/o House No.521, Phase
3-A, Mohali.
3. Taranjit Kaur D/o Sh. Ranjit Singh Anand, R/o House No.521, Phase
3-A, Mohali.
...Respondents/complainants
4. HDFC Bank, Phase-II, SCF No.19, Mohali through its Branch
Manager.
...Respondents.
First Appeal against the order dated
14.01.2011 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar,
Mohali.
Before:-
Shri Inderjit Kaushik, Presiding Judicial Member.
Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.
...................................
Present:- Sh. D.P. Gupta, Advocate, with Sh. Jagtar Kureel Advocate, counsel for the appellant.
Sh. S.S. Bawa, Advocate, counsel for respondents no.1 to 3. Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate, counsel for respondent no.4.
-------------------------------------------- INDERJIT KAUSHIK, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
This order shall dispose of two (2) appeals i.e. First Appeal No.250 of 2011 (United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Ranjit Singh Anand & Ors.) and First Appeal No.729 of 2011 (HDFC Bank Vs Ranjit First Appeal No.250 of 2011 2 Singh Anand & Ors.) as both the appeals are directed against the same order dated 14.01.2011 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, SAS Nagar, Mohali (in short "the District Forum"). The facts are taken from First Appeal No.250 of 2011 and the parties would be referred by their status in this appeal.
2. Facts in brief are that Sh. Ranjit Singh Anand and others, respondents no.1 to 3/complainants (hereinafter called as "respondents no.1 to 3") filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the appellant/opposite party no.2(hereinafter called "the appellant") and respondent no.4/opposite party no.1 (hereinafter called "respondent no.4"), making the averments that respondent no.1 is a senior citizen and is working with Merchant Navy as an Electrical Officer. He took one Medical Insurance for himself and his family members i.e. respondents no.2 & 3 in the sum of Rs.2.00 lacs per person in May, 2007 and is continuously paying the premium amount of Rs.12,420/- per annum. The name of the policy given by the appellant was 'Individual Health Insurance Policy' and the policy number is 110201/48/10/97/00000072. The policy taken by respondent no.1 completed three years on 30th May, 2010, but during the renewal of the policy for the fourth year, the appellant and respondent no.4 created the situation which resulted in cancellation of the policy of respondents no.1 to 3 without their fault.
3. The premium for the above policy for the fourth year was due till midnight of 30.05.2010 and there was a provision of 15 days grace period according to the terms and conditions of the policy. In order to pay the premium, respondent no.1 called the agent of the appellant on 19.05.2010 and gave him one cheque for the premium of the next year for the period, commencing from 31.05.2010 to 30.05.2011 amounting to Rs.12,420/- vide cheque no.259726 dated 20.05.2010 of respondent no.4 bank with account no.005615700166. He earlier deposited one cheque of Rs.1.50 lacs and another cheque of Rs.3,000/- in his account on 19.05.2010. the cheque First Appeal No.250 of 2011 3 amounting to Rs.3,000/- was cleared on the same date, but for the other cheque of Rs.1.50 lacs, respondent no.4 made inordinate delay in getting the amount cleared by sending the cheque late to the clearing bank. Instead of sending the said cheque for clearing on 19th or 20.05.2010, respondent no.4 willingly and knowingly kept the said cheque with it and sent it for clearing on 21.05.2010, causing the delay of 2 days and the cheque was dishonoured. After the dishonour of the cheque of Rs.12,420/- on 21.05.2010, the cheque pertaining to Rs.1.50 lacs was credited on the same date in the account of respondent no.1 and the same amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondent no.4. In case of dishonouring of the cheque, the bank should have communicated to him through E-governance services which he had already subscribed, through which respondent no.4 used to give information regarding the transaction for Rs.5,000/- and above, but no information was given regarding the dishonour of the cheque.
4. Respondent no.2 is wife of respondent no.1 and she received a letter from the office of the appellant on 18.06.2010, informing about the cancellation of the health insurance policy of the respondents no.1 to 3 due to dishonour of the cheque. The wife of respondent no.1 immediately informed him, who was abroad on boardship at that time. She also personally went to the office of the appellant on 20th June, 2010 and requested to take the cash, but the appellant did not listen and she also wrote a letter dated 23.06.2010 to the appellant, requesting to revive the policy, but the appellant did not bother. Respondent no.1 again wrote one letter dated 25.06.2010, showing concern about the above policy which was cancelled without the fault of respondents no.1 to 3 as the cheque was dishonoured due to the fault of respondent no.4 and the intimation was also given very late and that amounts to deficiency in service. Respondents no.1 & 2 suffered lot of mental tension and harassment.
5. It was prayed that the appellant may be directed to revive the cancelled policy and to compensate the respondents no.1 to 3 to the tune of First Appeal No.250 of 2011 4 Rs.2.40 lacs including litigation expenses, to pay medical bills and respondent no.4 may be directed to pay compensation of Rs.2.40 lacs for deficiency in service and for harassment and mental agony.
6. In the written version filed on behalf of respondent no.4, preliminary objections were taken that the cheque no.514488 for an amount of Rs.1.50 lacs was deposited for encashment to the bank on 20.05.2010 and was sent for clearing immediately on the next date i.e. on 21.05.2010 and the credit for the same was received at the end of the day at 7.30 p.m. and the amount was credited. The cheque issued by respondent no.1 in favour of the appellant was presented for clearing on 21.05.2010 and the same hit the account through clearing house on 15.56 hours and at that time, there were no sufficient funds and the amount of Rs.1.50 lacs had not been received and the cheque was returned as unpaid. There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondent no.4.
7. On merits, it was submitted that respondent no.4 has no relation with the appellant. The cheque for Rs.3,000/- was cleared as sufficient funds were there in the account. Even without the amount of Rs.1.50 lacs being cleared, there was Rs.3,000/- in the account. The said cheque was not deposited on 19th as alleged and there was no delay on the part of respondent no.4 bank. All other allegations were denied and it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
8. In the written version filed on behalf of the appellant, preliminary objections were raised that the District Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. The premium was not paid and for non-compliance of Section 64 V.B., the policy was cancelled and necessary intimation was given by the branch office at Chandigarh through registered post and the Forum has no jurisdiction. The intimation letter dated 11.06.2010 vide registered post was sent. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellant nor there is no negligence on the part of the appellant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Respondents no.1 to 3 are not consumers as there is no privity of First Appeal No.250 of 2011 5 contract between them and the appellant. Respondent no.1 obtained the policy of insurance from the appellant for the first time in the year 2007 and is the proposer and in order to get the continuous policy, the insured is supposed to pay the premium of the policy commencing in the next year prior to the expiry of the previous policy. In case, the premium is paid after lapse of grace period of 15 days, in that case, the policy holder has to fill the fresh proposal form and the fresh policy is to be commenced. The answering respondent was not under any liability to intimate regarding the dishonour of the cheque and it was for respondent no.1 to see whether the cheque has been encashed or not. The deficiency or negligence, if any, is on the part of respondent no.4 and not of the appellant.
9. On merits, similar pleas as taken in preliminary objections were repeated and denying allegations of the complaint, it was prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
10. Parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions by way of affidavits and documents.
11. After going through the documents and material placed on file and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned District Forum observed that it was the duty of the appellant to check by 30.05.2010 from respondent no.4 that the amounts of the cheques delivered by it on or before 21.05.2010 stood credited to its accounts, especially when third party interest was involved and if not, then send prompt intimation to the drawers of the cheques to enable them to take remedial measures. There is definite fault in the functioning of the appellant when its officers and functionaries did not bother to see the fate of the cheque issued in his favour for three weeks together (from 21.05.2010 to 11.06.2010) in the present case. Exercise of reasonable amount of care in the present case on the part of the officials of the appellant would have avoided the present controversy and unnecessary litigation. The appellant is bound to compensate respondent no.1 and to renew the policy on the original terms and conditions on receipt of premium of First Appeal No.250 of 2011 6 Rs.12,420/-. The complaint was allowed and respondent no.4 was directed to pay to respondent no.1 compensation for deficiency in service to the tune of Rs.15,000/-, the appellant to renew/revive the policy from the date of its inception on receipt of premium amount of Rs.12,420/- which shall be deposited by respondent no.1 within 15 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Both the appellant and respondent no.4 were directed to pay Rs.1500/- each as litigation expenses.
12. Aggrieved by the impugned order dated 14.01.2011, the appellant has come up in the present appeal, with a prayer to set aside the impugned.
13. Respondent no.4-HDFC Bank also filed the appeal i.e. First Appeal No.729 of 2011 (HDFC Bank Vs Ranjit Singh Anand & Ors.), with a prayer that the impugned order may be set aside and the complaint may be dismissed.
14. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record of the learned District Forum and have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
15. Respondent no.1 took one medical insurance policy for himself and his family members i.e. respondent no.2 & 3 in the sum of Rs.2.00 lacs per person and the premium was regularly paid. The name of the policy was 'Individual Health Insurance Policy'. The policy taken by respondent no.1 completed three years on 30th May, 2010 and the premium for the said policy for the fourth year was to be paid till 30.05.2010 and there was a provision of '15 days grace period' as per the terms.
16. Respondent no.1 gave the cheque of Rs.12,420/- bearing no.259726 dated 20.05.2010 of respondent no.4-bank. Prior to that, respondent no.1 deposited one cheque of Rs.1.5 lacs and another cheque of Rs.3,000/- in his account and the cheque amount of Rs.3,000/- was cleared, but the cheque amount of Rs.1.5 lacs was not cleared by respondent no.4- First Appeal No.250 of 2011 7 bank and the above cheque for the payment of the premium for the fourth year was dishonoured.
17. The version of respondent no.4-bank is that the amount of Rs.1.5 lacs was credited late, whereas the cheque for the premium amount came first before the clearing, but at that time, sufficient funds were not there and the cheque was dishonoured, but their version is not correct.
18. As per the correspondence Ex.C-14, cheque No.514488 for Rs.1.50 lacs was received by respondent no.4-bank on 19th evening and the same was processed on next working day i.e. 20th May, 2010 and was sent to the clearing on the same day. Once respondent no.4 has sent the above cheque of R.1.50 lacs for clearing on 20th May, 2010, then this amount should have been credited first because the cheque no.259726 was dated 20.05.2010, whereas the cheque to credit the amount was received by respondent no.4-bank in the evening of 19th and there should have been no hitch for clearing the said cheque and crediting the amount in the account of respondent no.1 on 20th May and the inordinate delay caused on the part of respondent no.4-bank led to the dishonour of the cheque and further, the premium amount for the continuance of the policy for fourth year could not reach the appellant insurance company, but there was no fault on the part of respondent no.1 and the District Forum has rightly held respondent no.4-bank liable for its lapses. The order of the District Forum is legal and valid and there is no ground to interfere with the same.
19. In view of above discussion, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed and the impugned order under appeal dated 14.01.2011 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
20. The appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.8250/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent no.1/complainant no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the First Appeal No.250 of 2011 8 expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
21. Remaining amount as per the order of the District Forum shall be paid by the appellant to respondent no.1/complainant no.1 within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order.
First Appeal No.729 of 2011:-
22. In view of the reasons and discussion held in First Appeal No.250 of 2011 (United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Ranjit Singh Anand & Ors.), the First Appeal No.729 of 2011 (HDFC Bank Vs Ranjit Singh Anand & Ors.) is dismissed and the impugned order under appeal dated 14.01.2011 passed by the District Forum is affirmed and upheld. No order as to costs.
23. The appellant-HDFC Bank in F.A. No.729 of 2011 had deposited an amount of Rs.8250/- with this Commission at the time of filing of the appeal. This amount with interest accrued thereon, if any, be remitted by the registry to the respondent no.1/complainant no.1 by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days under intimation to the learned District Forum and to the appellant.
24. Remaining amount as per the order of the District Forum shall be paid by the appellant to respondent no.1/complainant no.1 within 45 days of the receipt of copy of the order.
25. The arguments in both these appeals were heard on 15.03.2013 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
26. The appeal could not be decided within the stipulated timeframe due to heavy pendency of court cases.
27. Copy of the order be placed in First Appeal No.729 of 2011 (HDFC Bank Vs Ranjit Singh Anand & Ors.).
(Inderjit Kaushik) Presiding Judicial Member (Vinod Kumar Gupta) Member March 25, 2013.
First Appeal No.250 of 2011 9(Gurmeet S)