STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. RAJIV DHAWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions, one being Revision Petition No. 1686 of 2006 by the State Bank of India/opposite party No. 1 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar ( District Forum for short) and the other being Revision Petition No. 1999 of 2006 by the complainant, have been filed against a common order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh ( State Commission for short). While the complainant is unhappy that the full insured value of his car has not been ordered to be paid and, therefore, seeks enhancement of the award, the State Bank of India/opposite party No. 1 seeks setting aside of the order passed by the State Commission being irregular. Facts of the case, in short, are that the insurance policy for the car of the complainant was valid for a period of one year from 3rd of December, 2004 to 2nd of December, 2005. In order, therefore, to renew the insurance policy, the complainant issued a cheque for Rs. 1,278 towards the insurance premium on 2nd of December, 2004 to opposite party/respondent No. 2, United India Insurance Company Ltd. ( Insurance Company for short). The dispute arose after the cheque when presented was not honoured by the State Bank of India/opposite party No. 1, resulting in lapse of the insurance policy, and the car of the complainant was stolen on 5th of December, 2004, i.e. within three days of the issue of the cheque. A report with regard to the theft was lodged, with the Police authorities and a claim was preferred with the Insurance Company, who repudiated the same on the ground that the cheque issued by the complainant for the insurance policy was not honoured by the Bank and the policy had been cancelled. The complainant thereafter approached the State Bank of India/opposite party No. 1 to make good the insured value of the car, which was declined. A complaint thereafter was filed before the District Forum, who vide its order dated 6th of February, 2005, holding the State Bank of India/opposite party No. 1 to be deficient in rendering service, awarded a compensation of Rs. 10,000. Aggrieved thereupon both the complainant as well as the State Bank of India/opposite party No. 1 filed their appeals before the State Commission, who vide the impugned order, while dismissing the appeal of the State Bank of India/opposite party No. 1, has, however, partly accepted the appeal of the complainant and held that he would be entitled to Rs. 45,000, being the 50% of the insured value of the car. Aggrieved once again that both the parties have filed their respective revision petitions before us.

(2.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records of the case.

(3.) There is no doubt that for the dishonour of the cheque dated 2nd of December, 2004 for Rs. 1,278, which was the amount of premium, the complainant s car insurance policy lapsed resulting in repudiation of his claim. It is the case of the complainant that when on the date he issued the cheque i.e. on 2nd of December, 2004 the statement of account in his credit reflected a balance of Rs. 10,760; the State Bank of India/opposite party No. 1 had no reason not to have honoured the cheque for a paltry sum of Rs. 1,278. Both the Fora below, relying on this averment of the complaint, have held the State Bank of India/opposite party No. 1 deficient in service. However, learned Counsel for the State Bank of India/opposite party No. 1 contends that both the Fora below appeared to have lost sight of the fact that a cheque for Rs. 15,000 issued by the complainant for credit into his account on the 10th of November, 2004 had been honoured and credited into his account maintained by them in anticipation of its clearance by the issuing branch, which, in the present case happened to be the same Bank s Chandigarh Branch. This was done as per practice prevalent in the banking system. However, the whole problem arose because the cheque for Rs. 15,000 bounced as the complainant did not have sufficient funds to his credit in his account maintained with the State Bank of India, Chandigarh Branch. This bouncing of cheque has resulted in a cascading effect and when the cheque, even for a paltry sum of Rs. 1,278, was issued on the 2nd of December, 2004, in fact there was a negative balance and obviously the State Bank of India/opposite party No. 1 had no option but to return the cheque. These facts, learned Counsel contends, have not been given due consideration by the Fora below.