State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Indian Bank Through Its Branch Manager vs 1. Smt. Usha Rani on 15 October, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UNION TERRITORY,
CHANDIGARH.
Appeal
case No.1771/2002/Hry/RBT/1577/2008
Date of decision :15.10.2009
Indian Bank through its Branch Manager, Geeta Bhawan Road,
Sonepat, District Sonepat.
Appellant
Versus
1.
Smt.
Usha Rani widow of Sh.Madan Mohan Lal r/o House No.1537, Sector-14, Housing
Board Colony, Sonepat.
2.
Life
Insurance Corporation of India, SCO No.9,10,11, Sector-17, Kurukshetra through
its Manager.
...Respondents
Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against
order dated 10.7.2002 passed by Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum-Sonepat
Argued by: Sh.Harsh
Gupta, advocate for the appellant.
Sh.Prashant Bhardwaj, advocate for respondent No.1
Sh.B.J. Singh ,advocate
for respondent NO.2
Appeal
Case No.1802/2002/Hry/RBT/244/2009
Smt. Usha Rani widow of Sh.Madan Mohan Lal r/o House
No.1537, Sector-14, Housing Board Colony, Sonepat, District Sonepat.
.Appellant
Versus
1.
Indian
Bank through its Branch Manager, Geeta Bhawan Road, Sonepat, District Sonepat.
2.
Life
Insurance Corporation of India, SCO No.9,10,11, Sector-17, Kurukshetra through
its Manager.
. Respondents.
Appeal U/s
15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
against
order dated 10.7.2002 passed by Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sonepat.
Argued by: Sh.Prashant Bhardwaj, advocate for
the appellant.
Sh.Harish Gupta, advocate for respondent No.1
Sh.B.J. Singh ,advocate for respondent NO.2
BEFORE : Honble
Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President
Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor (Retd.),Member
Mrs. Neena Sandhu,Member
JUDGMENT
15.10.2009 Justice Pritam Pal, President
1. The aforesaid two appeals have arisen out of one and the same order dated 10.7.2002 passed by the District Consumer Forum-Sonepat in complaint case No.308 of 24.9.99. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in both these appeals, therefore, we propose to dispose of them by this common judgment.
2. The parties in this judgment are being referred to as per their ranking before the District Forum. The brief facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated thus ;
The husband of the complainant Sh.Madan Mohan Lal alia Sh.M.M.Seth was insured with Life Insurance Corporation- OP No.2 vide policy No.171101590 for a sum of Rs.one lac and he had been depositing premium regularly and well in time. For making payment of the premium due in April,1998, he had issued a cheque in favour of Life Insurance Corporation for Rs.8462.30 paise drawn on Indian Bank- OP NO.1 where he was having his saving bank account NO.4817. However, the said cheque was not cleared and returned by OP No.1 with the remarks insufficient funds. The insured subsequently died on 30.8.98. After his death, on the request of complainant, OP No.1 confirmed that in saving bank account No.4817 of Sh.M.M.Seth there was balance of Rs.14109.95 on 3.6.98 and the cheque in question of Rs.8462.30p issued in favour of OP NO.2 was wrongly dishonoured. It was next averred that as per terms and conditions of the LIC policy, OP NO.2 settled the claim of complainant on ex-gratia basis and a sum of Rs.50,000/- was paid to her vide cheque dated 19.7.99. OP NO.2 vide letter NO.169 dated 18.8.99 informed the complainant that because of non-payment of the premium due on 4/98, her case was settled on ex-gratia basis because the cheque issued for the said premium was dishonourned by Indian Bank with the remarks insufficient funds. It was alleged that on the death of her husband the complainant was entitled to get the whole sum assured i.e.Rs.one lac from OP NO.2 but due to negligence and deficient service on the part of OP NO.1 the complainant was paid less amount against the policy of deceased insured thereby causing a net loss of Rs. 50,000/- of the sum assured besides the amount of bonus accrued thereon as per terms and conditions of the LIC policy. The complainant visited the office of OP NO.1 and requested to compensate her for the loss suffered due to dishonouring of cheque but her request was not acceded to. Hence, alleging negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs, complaint case NO.621 of 2008 was filed before the District Consumer Forum.
3. On the other hand, the case of OP No.1 before the District Forum was that a cheque was received on 3.6.98 in clearing and the same was returned due to insufficient funds as the account No.4817 in the name of M.M.Seth was having a balance of Rs.5129.85p as on 3.6.98 and the cheque amount was more than that. On 5.6.98 the account holder had informed the bank telephonically that he had deposited Rs.10,000/- in his account on 9.5.98 and as such there was sufficient balance in his account for clearance of the cheque and the cheque had been wrongly dishonoured. The account of the account holder was then overhauled on 5.6.98 and after confirming from the vouchers the mistake was found that inadvertently an amount of Rs.1000/- was credited on 9.5.98 in account No.4817 instead of Rs.10,000/-
and balance of Rs.5129.85 was shown instead of Rs.14129.85 as in the voucher one zero of ten thousand was not visible and the mistake was rectified in the ledger. It was pleaded that inadvertently the mistake had occurred which was rectified later on and as such the bank was not liable to pay the compensation as claimed in the complaint.
4. OP NO.2 also filed its separate reply admitting the factual aspect of the case with regard to purchase of LIC policy bearing No.171101590 by Sh.Madan Mohan Lal for a sum of Rs.one lac during his life time from OP NO.2 and that he had been making payment of the premium . However, the last payment which was due in 4/98 could not be adjusted till his death because the cheque issued by the insured in lieu thereof was dishonoured by OP NO.1 on the ground of insufficient funds and due to non-payment of the said premium the policy was lapsed and could not be revived during his life time. Though LIC was not legally bound to pay any amount on the lapsed policy, yet on the claim filed by complainant, OP NO.2 made ex-gratia payment of Rs.50,000/- on compassionate ground and there was no deficiency in service on its part.
5. The District Consumer Forum after going through the evidence and other material brought on file and hearing the learned counsel for parties, allowed the complaint by directing OP No.1 to pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- to meet out the loss suffered by her as she got less amount from the LIC. OP NO.1 was also directed to pay Rs.5000/- to compensate the complainant on account of pain, sufferings and also to meet out the litigation expenses. A direction was also issued to OP No.1 to comply with the order within 30 days..
6. This is how feeling aggrieved Indian Bank- OP NO.1 had filed appeal case No. 1771/2002/Hry/RBT/1577/2008 for setting aside the impugned order dated 10.7.2002 while complainant Smt. Usha Rani had filed appeal case No. 1802/2002/Hry/RBT/244/2009 for enhancement of compensation awarded by the District Forum before the Haryana State Consumer commission which has now been transferred to this Commission under the directions of Honble National Consumer Commission.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the file carefully. The only noticeable point of arguments raised on behalf of Indian bank- Opposite party NO.1 (hereinafter referred to as the bank) is that there was bonafide mistake on its part while dishonouring the cheque of premium in the name of Life Insurance Corporation of India opposite party NO.2 (hereinafter referred to as LIC), so on that count liability should not have been fastened upon the bank. He further submitted that this was all done in good faith. At the fag end of his arguments, the learned counsel for the bank submitted that later on due intimation of detecting the mistake was also sent to the account holder, so, in such a situation the liability to pay compensation to the complainant could not have been imposed. In support of this, he placed reliance upon the following authorities ;
1. Smt.T.H.Malathi Vs Manager, State Bank of Mysore :CPC 1994(2)27 (State Consumer Commission,Banagalore, Karanataka).
2. V.Purushothaman Vs Indian Bank : 1996(2)CPC 388 (State Consumer Commission, Tamil Nadu, Madras.
3. Er.Mohinder pal Vs State Bank of India 1996(2)CPC 402 (State Consumer Commission, U.T.Chandigarh)
4. Vimla Goyal Vs The Asstt. Engineer, Delhi Vidyut Board : 2004(2)CLT 79 (Delhi State Consumer Commission)
5. Nina Arora Vs Senior Manager, Canara Bank : CPC 1995(1)64 (National Consumer Commission)
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for complainant has repelled the aforesaid points of arguments raised on behalf of the bank and submitted that no intimation whatsoever, as alleged above by the bank, was ever given to the account holder Sh.M.M.Seth who had expired on 30.8.1998. Further it has also been argued that the complainant who is widow of the deceased Sh.M.M.Set has not been duly compensated in terms of the policy No.171101590 of the insured as she was entitled to full insured amount of Rs.one lac plus bonus, interest and other benefits under the policy but due to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the bank the policy stood lapsed and she could not get the due amount under the policy.
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the above said rulings and find that the facts contained therein are quite at variance from the facts of the case in hand, inasmuch-as there in the above said rulings no loss was proved to have been caused on account of dishonouring of cheque as had happened in the instant case where the account holder had died after issuing the cheque of premium against his policy and due to fault of the bank the cheque stood dishonoured resulting lapsing of LIC policy on account of non-payment of premium. Therefore, no benefit can be derived from the observations made by their lordships in the above said rulings.
10. There is also no material on the file which could show that any intimation regarding dishonouring of the cheque on account of which policy had lapsed, was ever given to the account holder by the bank. It is further evident on the file that there was grave mistake on the part of the bank in posting the amount of Rs.1000/- instead of Rs.10,000/- in the account of deceased account holder. Infact in the given facts and circumstances of the case it was not a case of bonafide mistake but it had occurred on account of carelessness and negligence on the part of concerned employee of the bank and as such on that count the widow of the account holder cannot be allowed to suffer. Had this grave mistake not been taken place of dishonouring the cheque in that eventuality complainant would have been entitled to the assured amount of Rs.one lack together with bonus and other benefits accrued under the policy held by Sh.M.M.Seth, deceased husband of the complainant after his death. In this case it is an admitted fact that the balance in the account of Sh.M.M.Seth, the account holder who had since expired was Rs.14109.85p on 3.6.98. The cheque was issued by the account holder on 13.5.98 and the same was dishonoured on 5.6.98. This fact goes a longway to show that the bank was deficient while rendering service to its customer. Faced with this situation, we find no merit in the appeal filed by the bank.
11. Now adverting to the appeal filed by the complainant for enhancement of the compensation. In this case a compensation of Rs.50,000/- had been awarded by the District Forum on account of loss suffered by the complainant. However, keeping in view the loss suffered by the complainant on account of other benefits including bonus available to her under the policy which stood lapsed due to fault of the bank, this amount appears to be on the lower side. So on that counts, applying the rule of thumb, we award lumpsum compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the financial loss suffered by the complainant. In this way the compensation awarded by the District Forum is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.75,000/-.
12. In the result, appeal filed by the Indian bank bearing No. 1771/2002/Hry/RBT/1577/2008 is dismissed with costs which are quantified at Rs.5000/- whereas appeal filed by complainant-Smt. Usha Rani bearing appeal case No. 1802/2002/Hry/RBT/244/2009 is allowed in the aforesaid terms. It is further directed that the entire amount payable by the bank shall be paid to the complainant within 30 days from the date of copy of this order is received, failing which complainant shall be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of this order till actual realization.
Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.
Announced ( Justice Pritam Pal)(Retd.) 15th Oct.,2009 President (Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor )(Retd.) Member (Mrs.Neena Sandhu) Member STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH.
Appeal Case No.1802/2002/Hry/RBT/244/2009 Smt. Usha Rani widow of Sh.Madan Mohan Lal r/o House No.1537, Sector-14, Housing Board Colony, Sonepat, District Sonepat.
.Appellant Versus Indian Bank through its Branch Manager, Geeta Bhawan Road, Sonepat, District Sonepat.
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, SCO No.9,10,11, Sector-17, Kurukshetra through its Manager.
. Respondents.
Appeal U/s 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against order dated 10.7.2002 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sonepat.
Argued by: Sh.Prashant Bhardwaj, advocate for the appellant.
Sh.Harish Gupta , advocate for respondent No.1 Sh.B.J. Singh ,advocate for respondent NO.2 BEFORE : Honble Mr.Justice Pritam Pal, President Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor (Retd.),Member Mrs. Neena Sandhu,Member JUDGMENT 15.10.2009 Justice Pritam Pal, President This appeal has been allowed in terms of our detailed order of the even date recorded separately in connected appeal case No. 1771/2002/Hry/RBT/1577/2008 titled Indian Bank Vs Usha Rani etc. A copy of that order be placed on this file.
Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.
Maj.Gen.S.P.Kapoor Justice Pritam Pal Mrs. Neena Sandhu (retd) President Member Member