IMPORTANT POINT
Payment of cheque date backs to the date of cheque or to the time it was given.

S.G. Deshmukh, Member—These two appeals arise from the judgment and order dated 19.3.1998, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Beed in Complaint Case No. 51/1997, thereby directing the opponents No. 1 to 4 to pay Rs. 5,00,000 jointly and severally within period of 2 months and also to pay Rs. 5,000 towards mental agony and damages and Rs.1,000 towards costs to the complainant.

2. The complainant’s case before the Forum is that, Mahadev Bapurao Sirsath was carrying business in the name and style as M/s. Saudagar Krushi Seva Kendra and was maintaining a loan account with the opponent No. 2. It is contended that, Mahadev Bapurao Sirsath i.e. husband of the complainant has taken Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy of Rs. 5,00,000 for the period 10.3.1997 to 9.3.2009 i.e. for a period of 12 years. It is contended that, her husband had handed over a cheque of Rs. 1,650 dated 4.3.1997 towards the premium. He was issued a cover note dated 10.3.1997 covering proposed risk under the proposed Insurance Policy. It is contended that, her husband Mahadev Sirsath died in accident on 15.3.1997. According to the opponents No. 1 and 2, the said cheque was presented to their bank on 2.4.1997, which was returned unpaid by the bank with the remark “Party Died”. According to the opponents No.1 and 2, the liability is of National Insurance Corporation, as the said cheque was deposited by their agent on or about 13.3.1997 and they had presented the cheque to their bank on about 14.3.1997 for realisation, which was returned unpaid with remark “Party Died”. It is also contended by the complainant that, she had informed the opponents No. 3 and 4 regarding accident in question. It is further contention of the complainant that, NIC had informed her vide letter dated 17.4.1997 as to the bouncing of the premium cheque and had cancelled the receipt and further informed her that, they are not at risk from inception of the policy. It is further her contention that, a D.D. of Rs. 1,650 with letter dated 28.5.1997 towards premium for cancelled cheque dated 4.3.1997 was sent by her to NIC. The NIC informed her that, no insurance could be granted in respect of the dead person and returned the D. D., hence the complainant approached to the District Forum, Beed by filing complaint.

3. All the opponents appeared before the Forum below and resisted the claim by filing their written statements. It is the contention of the NIC that, as there was no valid or concluded contract between the NIC and deceased Mahadev Sirsath, as he died before realisation of the premium cheque. It is also contended that, receipt of the cheque mentions that, cheque was subject to the realisation of the cheque. As no consideration was passed, there is no obligation on the part of the NIC to accept the liability, as there is bar under Section 64 (v)(b) of the Insurance Act to cover any such risk. It is also contended that, no acceptance of proposal was communicated to the deceased.

4. The original opponents No.1 and 2 contended that, there was no deficiency in the services on their part. The cheque was presented to the Bank on 2.4.1997, when the insured was reported to be dead. It is contended that, death of insured terminated the contract between him and bank. It is further contended that, on 2.4.1997 when the cheque was presented for payment, the account of complainant’s husband was already overdrawn of the sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs. 2,25,000 and in fact there was outstanding dues of Rs. 2,50,108.34 ps. Thus they contended that, Bank has correctly and legally refused to payment of the cheque in question.

5. The Forum below after going through the documents, affidavits and hearing the parties, allowed the complaint with directions to the opponents to pay Rs. 5,00,000 towards the insurance claim together with sum of Rs. 5,000 towards mental agony and Rs. 1,000 towards cost.

6. Being aggrieved by the order of the Forum below, the Appeal No. 890/1998 has been