TARA KAUNDAL WD/O PAWAN KUMAR KAUNDAL, BIKRAM SINGH S/O PAWAN KUMAR KAUNDAL. Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF INDIA, BRANCH RAURA SECTOR, BILASPUR, HIMACHAL PRADESH.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admitted facts giving rise to this case are that the deceased Pawan Kumar Kaundal was the husband of appellant No. 1, father of appellants No.2 and 3 and son of appellant No.4. On 26.4.2002 he was insured in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/ - (four lacs only) by agent of respondent No.1 i.e. Smt. Sangita. Cheque of first premium in the sum of Rs. 5401/ - was issued on the same date in favour of respondent No.1. It was drawn on Punjab National Bank, Sarkaghat. Record of the case further shows that at that time and even thereafter there was enough balance in the account of the deceased for clearance of the cheque in question. Insured Pawan Kumar Kaundal died in a vehicular accident on the night of 4th May, 2002.

(2.) Respondent No.1 had sent the cheque for collection through its banker i.e. respondent No.4, who in turn together sent the cheque for collection to Punjab National Bank. Banker had credited the amount to the account of respondent No.1 Insurance Company. However, cheque was not encashed by the banker of the deceased Pawan Kumar Kaundal, as the account holder had died. This resulted in repudiation of the claim by the Insurance Company -respondent No.1. Since according to the appellants there was deficiency in service on the part of the -respondents, as such they have filed the complaint and before that notice was also served by the appellants.

(3.) Stand of respondent No.1 in reply to the complaint is that it admits having insured the deceased and also having received the cheque in question. Deficiency was pleaded on the part of respondent No.2 H.C. Thakur Scale 3 Manager, Punjab National Bank, Sarkaghat. Issuance of policy under table and term 150 -26, cheque having been sent on 30.4.2002 for collection was admitted to its banker i.e. respondent N.4 who in turn sent it for collection on 20 5.2005, thus it was not sent in time. Vide memos Annexures R1/A and B the cheque was dishonoured and the report of dishonour by PNB dated 1.7.2002 is placed on file as Annexure R1C. Reply to notice was sent and in this background respondent No.1 dish owned its liability. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed a joint reply and admitted that deceased Pawan Kumar had his account in PNB, Sarkaghat saying that it has an extension counter at Barchhwar. On 24.5.2002 the bill for collection of Sr. No. 1508 to 1640 were received in a clustered manner and no bank -wise schedule was given by the Uco Bank Bilaspur, therefore, it was sent back to the said Bank by registered post. It was received back on 15.6.2002. Thus the schedule 1640 amounting to Rs. 5401/ - was returned on 19.6.2002 by courier to Uco Bank, Bilaspur as the cheque was bounced for the reason that its drawer on the night of 4.5.2002 died due to which fact the account was inoperative, having sufficient funds in the account.