State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Syndicate Bank vs P. Narasavva on 8 December, 2023
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.180 OF 2018
AGAINST ORDERS IN CC.NO.67 OF 2012, DISTRICT
CONSUMER COMMISSION, NIZAMABAD
Between:
Syndicate Bank
Kamareddy Branch Rep. by its Manager,
D.No.6-3-879/B, 1st Floor,
NH-7, Kamareddy.
....Appellant/Opp.Party No.3
And
1.Pothugunta Narasavva, W/o.Late Pothugunta Ramulu, Age 52 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Hussian Nagar (V) Srikonda Mandal (M), District: Nizamabad at present R/o.H.No.6-25-5, Gurbabadi, Dubba, Nizamabad.
....Respondent/Complainant
2. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, Nizamsagar X Roads, NH-7, Kamareddy Distirct, Nizamabad.
3. Superintendent Post Offices New Railway Station, Nizamabad.
4. Pothugunta Ramavva, W/o.Ramulu Age 50 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o.Hussain Nagar (V), Srikonda (M), District: Nizamabad ....Respondents/Opp.Parties 1,2 & 4 Counsel for the Appellant/Opp.Party No.3: M/s. Mohammed Habibullah Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant: Sri B.Tirupathi-R1 Counsel for the Respondents 2&3/Opp.Parties 1&2: M/s. G.Sriram -R2 Sri P.Narayana-R3 R4 - Set exparte QUORAM:
HON'BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN...IN-CHARGE PRESIDENT & HON'BLE SRI K. RANGA RAO, MEMBER-JUDICIAL FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY THREE ******* 2 Order : (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon'ble I/c President) [
1. This is an appeal filed by the Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 under Section-15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 22.02.2018 of the District Consumer Commission, Nizamabad made in CC.No.67/2012.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellant is the Opposite Party No.3, the Respondent No.1 is the Complainant and the Respondents No.2,3 & 4 are Opposite Parties No.1,2, & 4 in CC.No.67/2012.
3. The facts of the complaint are that the Complainant is the wife of late Pothuganti Ramulu, a RTC driver who during his life time had insured his life with Opposite Party No.1 under Policy No.643552615 with double benefits plus Bonus for the period commencing from 28.10.1995 to 28.10.2015. He died on 04.03.2009 and the wife as nominee submitted the claim form along with necessary documents.
4. The Opposite Party No.1 when approached claimed that they had sent a cheque to the Complainant vide registered post but she never received the registered letter. She further adds that the Opposite Parties have colluded with one another and encashed the cheque which she is entitled to, therefore the present complaint is filed against Opposite Parties No.1 to 4 seeking the reliefs as prayed for.
5. The Opposite Party No.1 filed written version and submitted that they have paid the death claim amount under the said policy to Smt.P.Narsavva, W/o.Late P.Ramulu who is nominee and she is the right person to receive the policy amount. The amount was paid through account payee cheque which is not negotiable and this Opposite Party took all precautions and followed the guidelines of RBI. It is the obligation of the Banker to credit the 3 amount to the account of the right person by following KYC guidelines. Therefore, there is no liability on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, as such there is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No.1 and prayed to dismiss the complaint against the Opposite Party No.1 with costs in the interest of justice.
6. The Opposite Party No.2 filed their written version contending that the complaint against this Opposite Party is frivolous, unsubstantiated and devoid of any merit. The Complainant had not given the details of delivery particulars of post such as article number, date of booking, address to which the article was booked etc., enabling this Opposite Party to submit the real facts. Further, the Complainant had not given the details of cause of action to file the complaint against this Opposite Party.
7. The Complainant had not disclosed deficiency of service on the part of this Opposite Party. Moreover, this Opposite Party had not received any notice or representation before filing of the case.
The Complainant filed the case against this Opposite Party without any substance by making baseless allegations and forced them to contest the case without any fault on their part. As such, the complaint is liable to be rejected by awarding the costs to this Opposite Party.
8. The Opposite Party No.3, Syndicate Bank, Kamareddy, filed their written version and submitted that one Pothuganti Ramavva, Opposite Party No.4 herein, opened an account after complying with the KYC norms and introduction by existing account holder of the Bank. Later, she submitted the cheque No.956160 dated 21.08.2009 for Rs.1,66,484/- for encashment issued by LIC Branch of Kamareddy towards death of Pothuganti Ramulu and she withdrew the said amount from the Bank. Later, the Bank received a letter from LIC, Kamareddy and came to know that the 4 Opposite Party No.4 is not the nominee of the policy and she suppressed the truth and played fraud.
9. The Opposite Party No.3 lodged complaint to police at Kamareddy to take action against Opposite Party No.4 and her son. The said complaint was registered as Crime No.163 of 2010 U/s.416 and 420 of IPC. The had followed the normal banking norms and is no way concerned with the personal criminal act of the account holder. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against this Opposite Party with costs.
10. The Opposite Party No.4 remained exparte throughout the proceedings before the District Commission, Nizamabad.
11. Before the District Forum, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A10 on her behalf. The Opposite Party No.1 filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.B1 to B6 on their behalf. The Opposite Party No.2 filed evidence affidavit and no documents marked on their behalf. The Opposite Party No.3 filed their evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.B7 to B17 on their behalf.
12. The District Forum after hearing both sides and considering the material on record, allowed the complaint in part directing the Opposite Parties 1 to 4 to pay the Ex.B9 (Ex.B1) cheque amount of Rs.1,66,484/- under the LIC Policy No.643552615 with 9% interest per annum from the date of cheque i.e., 21.08.2009 till realization to the Complainant. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the complaint to the Complainant.
13. Aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, the Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 preferred this appeal with the following grounds:
The District Forum had miserably failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidences available on record in proper and perspective manner.5
The District Forum failed to consider that the 4th Respondent withdrew the monies legally entitled by Complainant and the Complainant is not a client/customer of the Appellant Bank, as such there is no consumer relationship between the Complainant and the Appellant Bank.
The District Forum ought to have observed that the Appellant Bank issued account payee cheque in good faith and took all precautions to identify the person who received the payment compelling it to lodge a police complaint promptly. Since the question of impersonation whether really occurred or not is yet to be determined by the Criminal Court, the District Forum ought not to have come to conclusion that the money is delivered into wrong hands. The District Forum failed to observe that there is no limitation to entertain the complaint. The cheque is issued on 21.08.2009 and the same is encashed on 19.10.2009 and 21.01.2010 which constitute the cause of action in the complaint, whereas the complaint is filed on 24.11.2012.
The District Forum totally misunderstood and misapplied the facts and law and wrongly allowed claim based on surmises, suppositions, conjunctures, which are not relevant to decide the issues.
14. The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief?
15. The facts not in dispute are that the Respondent/Complainant's husband during his life time obtained a Life Insurance Policy bearing No.643552615 for sum assured Rs.75,000/- bearing double accident benefit. The Life Assured died on 04.03.2009 and the Opposite Party No.1 issued a cheque for Rs.1,66,484/- in the name of P.Narasavva. A perusal of the documents placed on record have been closely examined and the same reveal the following details necessary for resolving the issue.
616. The claim submitted vide Ex.A1 and the Opposite Party No.1 issued a cheque for Rs.1,66,484/- in the name of the Respondent/Complainant vide Ex.B1. The said instrument was sent by registered post and received by the Respondent/Complainant as evidenced vide Ex.B5-the attested list for uninsured registered articles of letters, mail etc. In this exhibit, No.B 1392 evidences the fact that the registered letter was delivered to the address of the Respondent/Complainant. It is the grievance of the Respondent/Complainant that the she never received the cheque by registered post and later found out that the cheque was encashed by Opposite Party No.4 in Opposite Party No.3 Bank.
17. In her cross examination conducted on 19.09.2013, she has deposed that Opposite Party No.4 is the second wife of the deceased life assured - her husband and for a period of six months they were living in the same house and there was collusion between Opposite Parties 1, 3 & 4.
18. In their defence, Opposite Party/LIC has relied on Ex.B1 to B6 and Ex.B2 in the discharge voucher signed by the Respondent/Complainant. Ex.B1 is the Xerox copy of the cheque issued in the name of "Narsavva, W/o.Late P.Ramulu" for a sum of Rs.1,66,484/- only. Opposite Party No.3 filed Ex.B7 to B17 and we refer to Ex.B9-the original cheque and the amount mentioned vide cheque No.956160 and A/c.No.35203050000083 tally with Ex.B2 issued by the Opposite Party No.1. The Opposite Party No.3 have also filed the Savings Bank Account and customer information of the Respondent/Complainant and a close perusal of the same reveals the following details:
Ex.B10 - the customer perusal information form reveals the Complainant's first name: P.Narasavva Middle Name : Kumari Ramavva 7
19. The statement of account filed vide Ex.B14 for the period from 01.01.2009 to 10.05.2010 reveals the customer name as Smt.P.Narasavva @ K.Ramavva and the cheque has been encashed vide transaction dated 19.10.2009. The amounts were withdrawn from the Respondent/Complainant's account and she claims that the second wife of her husband by name Pothuganti Ramavva played fraud and managed the withdrawal.
20. The Opposite Party No.4 i.e., Pothuganti Ramavva remained exparte and a complaint was filed by Appellant/Opposite Party No.3-the Senior Bank Manager before the S.I. of Police, Kamareddy vide Ex.A10. The Commission below failed to advert to the aspect of impersonation that has taken place between the Respondent/Complainant and Opposite Party No.4. The account as noticed from the records has both the names i.e., of the Respondent/Complainant and Opposite Party No.4. Whether this is a case of fraud or foul play on the part of the Respondent/Complainant was never considered by the Commission below.
21. The Appellant/Opposite Party No.3-Bank allowed the withdrawal of the amounts as the customer name and information provided has both the names of the Respondent/Complainant and Opposite Party No.4 in their records. In all probability, the Respondent/Complainant and Opposite Party No.4 are one and the same person and the present complaint is filed only to hoodwink the Commission and take advantage of the "name" game.
22. The Commission below has placed a great deal of emphasis on the First Name and Middle Name when the Respondent/Complainant has herself endorsed that she is known also as Kumari Ramavva. To assume that the Appellant/Opposite Party No.3-Bank has not followed the KYC norms as per RBI guidelines is not justified and also concluding that for the 8 fraudulent encashment of the cheque, Opposite Parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to compensate the Respondent/Complainant is a grave error.
23. We see this as gross misrepresentation on the part of the Respondent/Complainant and also that she trying to take undue advantage of being known by both the names. She has also filed an affidavit to this effect stating that she wants to open a Savings Bank Account in both the names. Opposite Party No.4 has conspicuously remained absent and her whereabouts have not been traced. In the said circumstances, we find the recordings of the Commission below irregular and unreasonable, as such the appeal is liable to be allowed.
24. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the District Commission, Nizamabad dated 22.02.2018 in CC.No.67/2012 is set aside. The Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 is permitted to withdraw the statutory deposit, if any, made to the credit of this appeal together with accrued interest thereon.
Sd/- Sd/-
I/C PRESIDENT MEMBER-J
Dt: 08.12.2023
UC*