Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 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.