RAGHUBIR SINGH vs Unit Trust of India

PETITIONER was the complainant before the District Forum whose complaint was dismissed on the ground that the case involves complex question of facts and law and question of fraud has crept in necessitating adducing detailed oral and documentary evidences, the Consumer Forum cannot adjudicate the controversy. An appeal filed by the petitioner before the State Commission was dismissing in-limine on the same grounds. Hence this appeal.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner took ULIP Policy for Rs. 40,000/- in August, 1987, which was to Mature on 2.7.1997. When the petitioner did not receive the amount on its maturity, several approaches were made to the respondent but to no avail till 24.6.1999 when the respondent informed the petitioner that on maturity, a cheque indeed was sent to the petitioner, but has been got encashed by someone from the Central Bank of India, Faridabad. Not getting the money and seeing the indifferent attitude of the respondents, the petitioner filed a complaint which was dismissed on the grounds that since it will involve complex question of facts of law involving detailed evidence, the Consumer Forum shall not be able to deal with the case, hence the Forum directed that the petitioner may approach a Civil Court for his relief. An appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Hence this petition. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as far as is concerned, he was entitled to get his money on maturity which admittedly he has not received. The cheque was sent by post. If somebody enroute has swindled it, the petitioner cannot be held responsible for that. The case of the petitioner is simple and no complex question involved relegating it to knock at the door of the Civil Court. On the other hand it was asked by the learned Counsel for the respondent that there has been no deficiency of service on their part. They had sent the cheque to the petitioner. They had done their duty. If the cheque has been got encashed by someone else the respondent cannot be held accountable for that. The orders of both the lower Forums are correct and need to be upheld. He also took exception to the wording used in the Memo of Revision Petition filed by the petitioner in which the imputation is that fraudulent encashment of cheque was in connivance with the UTI. The learned Counsel for the petitioner immediately apologized for the use of the word and volunteered to withdraw those words.

On merits, we see that admitted facts are that the petitioner did have a ULIP Policy for ten years maturing on 2.7.1997. A cheque was sent by post to the petitioner, but it seems to have been encashed but by someone else. We have consistently held that when a cheque is sent by post, the post office is the agent of the sender. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also emphasized this point. If the cheque is taken away by someone else before reaching the addressee, the latter cannot be held responsible for non-receipt or whatever else happens to the cheque. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we see a clear deficiency on the part of the respondent. They are directed to pay the amount due on maturity as on 2.7.1997 along with the agreed rate of interest. For the period after 3.7.1997, interest should be payable @ 9% p.a. for the amount of maturity. The respondent shall be free to seek his remedy vis-a-vis Post Office and Bank in the manner as advised. The orders of State Commission is set aside. This petition is allowed with cost of Rs. 3,000/- to be payable by the respondent to the petitioner. Revision Petition allowed.