BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA vs RAJEEV KUMAR SAXENA

THIS is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 7.8.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Shahjahanpur in Complaint Case No. 345/1992.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant has filed the complaint for refund of Rs. 25/- as commission towards preparation of Bank Draft, Rs. 500/- as cost, and Rs. 10,000/- as damages with 25% per annum interest. THE complainant on 16.4.1992 got a Bank Draft prepared for a sum of Rs. 9,975/- for payment to L.I.C. Mutual Fund Scheme of 1989. This draft was submitted to the Insurance Corporation on 16.4.1992. A sum of Rs. 25/- was charged as commission by the Bank. On account of wrong particulars in this Bank Draft the application along with the draft was returned due to which the complainant was deprived of depositing the same in the L.I.C. Mutual Fund. The opposite party, Life Insurance Corporation of India, has alleged that the complaint is false and is liable to be dismissed. The Bank Draft was returned on account of the fact that no account number was mentioned in it. The complainant has received the amount of the draft. The opposite party is not liable to pay any interest.

The learned District Forum, after considering the case of the parties, has come to the conclusion that the application of the complainant had reached the opposite party and hence it is liable for payment of Rs. 500/- as damages along with refund of Rs. 25/- as commission. 18% per annum interest was also allowed.

AGGRIEVED against this order of the learned District Forum, Life Insurance Corporation of India has come in appeal and has challenged the correctness of the order passed by the Forum. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. None was present from the side of the complainant inspite of notice having served on him by registered post. Hence the service was presumed sufficient.

LEARNED Counsel for the appellant has argued that the appellant was not at fault because the particulars provided were not complete. Hence the Bank Draft was returned to the complainant. A copy of the Bank Draft is also on record which shows that the particulars in the Bank Draft were not complete. When the Bank Draft was not properly filled up and there were some entries which were left out by the Bank, it was the fault of the Bank and not of the opposite party/appellant. Therefore, the appellant could not have been directed to pay compensation and refund of the amount as directed by the learned District Forum. The State Bank of India which has issued this draft has not been made a party because the fault was of the State Bank of India and the complainant should have impleaded the State Bank of India and should have prayed for these damages against that Bank. Thus we find that the findings of the learned District Forum are not correct and the appeal is liable to be allowed. ORDER The appeal is allowed and the judgment and order of the learned District Forum are confirmed and the complaint is dismissed. No order as to the costs. Let copy as per rules be made available to the parties. Appeal allowed.