State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Miss. Anindita Basu on 13 October, 2017
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION WEST BENGAL 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087 Revision Petition No. RP/54/2016 (Arisen out of Order Dated 18/02/2016 in Case No. CC/757/2014 of District Kolkata-I(North)) 1. Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. Ltd. 35/1, Kailash Building, 1st Floor, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Park Street, Kolkata - 700 016. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Miss. Anindita Basu Rep. by their father Sri Prabir Basu, 96A, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata - 700 026. 2. Mr. Anirban Basu Rep. by their father Sri Prabir Basu, 96A, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata - 700 026. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA MEMBER For the Petitioner: Mr. Dipak Ranjan Mukherjee, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Tarun Chakraborty., Advocate Dated : 13 Oct 2017 Final Order / Judgement Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Present Revision is directed against the Order dated 18-02-2016 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata in C.C. No. 757/2014.
By such Revision, it is stated by the Revisionist that Pune Office of the Insurance Company, with a view to settle the matter outside the Court, sent two cheques to the Respondent/Complainant and the Respondent/Complainant, moving an application before the Ld. District Forum sought due leave to encash the said cheques. Meanwhile, the Kolkata Office of the Insurance Company handed over two cheques to the Respondent/Complainant through its Ld. Advocate. When the incident of double payment came to surface, the Ld. Advocate intimated the matter to her client over phone. It is further stated that inadvertently the Insurance company directed concerned banks to stop payment of both sets of cheques. Being outraged, the Respondent/Complainant filed a petition u/s 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying for a direction upon the Revisionist to depute its competent person to appear before the Ld. District Forum personally and explain the situation that led to issuance of stop payment advice in respect of both sets of cheques and the Ld. District Forum allowed such petition vide its order dated 22-12-2015. It is further stated that on 08-01-2016, the Respondent/Complainant acknowledged receipt of two fresh cheques/demand drafts of equivalent sum, which have also been encashed by him. However, the Ld. District Forum still not closed the matter and insisted on the personal appearance of the competent person of the Revisionist to explain the situation. Hence, this Revision.
Heard both sides and perused the material on record carefully.
Undisputedly, the Respondent/Complainant received two fresh Demand Drafts in lieu of two cheques against which stop payment advice was made by the Revisionist. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent/Complainant has encashed the said two Demand Drafts. Keeping in mind the volunteer act of the Revisionist to amicably settle the dispute, there seems no reason to suspect its bona fide that led to issuance of stop payment advice in respect of both sets of cheques issued earlier.
Further, given that the Respondent/Complainant has received the payment, there seems no plausible ground to linger the matter further. We, therefore, deem it just and proper to set aside the impugned order whereupon the Ld. District Forum directed the Revisionist to depute its competent person to explain the previous goof up personally.
The Revision, accordingly, stands allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. [HON'BLE MR. SHYAMAL GUPTA] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MR. UTPAL KUMAR BHATTACHARYA] MEMBER