BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL

Present: Sri.P. V Nageswara Rao , M.A., LL.M., President(FAC)

And

Smt. C.Preethi,  M.A.LL.B., Lady Member

Thursday  the 06^th day of August,  2009

C.C.No.176/08

 Between:

S.Abdul Rahiman, S/o. Late Abdul Sattar,

H.No.49-1-86, Maddur Nagar, Kurnool-518002.          …Complainant

-Vs-

1. Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited ,

H.No.40/36-3, River View Colony, Kurnool.

1. Divisional Manager,  Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited,

P.B.No.10, College Road, Cuddapah-516004.

1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India,

D.No.38/158, Bazar Branch, Kurnool-518001.            … Opposite parties           

       This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudharshan, Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri.I.Anantha Rama Sastry, Advocate for opposite parties 1 and 2 and opposite party No.3 is called absent set-exparte  and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

(As per Sri. P.V.Nageswara Rao,President (FAC)

C.C.176/08

1.     Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint is as follows:-  The complainant had a life insurance policy for Rs.1,00,000/- bearing No. 652069943 for 20 years period under Jeevan Surabhi Policy  obtained in 1999 and received the policy also. As per the terms the complainant was entitled to received 25% of the assured amount i.e, Rs.25,000/- for every four years from the commencement of the policy. Premium was paid regularly to the opposite party. The complainant  assigned  a policy to  opposite party No. 3 for obtaining a loan. As per the conditions the opposite party  No. 3 was entitled to receive Rs.25,000/- from opposite party No. 1 towards loan amount. As per the policy  conditions as on 23-03-2007 the opposite party No. 1 was liable to pay the said amount. But opposite party No. 1 and 2 did not pay to opposite party No. 3 inspite of repeated contacts made by the complainant . Due to negligent act of opposite parties 1 and 2 the complainant was to pay excess interest to opposite party No. 3 . It was a deficiency of service . Thus the complaint was filed directing opposite party No. 1 and 2 to pay the policy amount of Rs.25,000/- with interest at 24% p.a to the complainant with Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and costs.

3.     The opposite party No. 2 filed a written version  adopted by opposite party No. 1 with a memo. The complainant was not a consumer . The policy No. 652069943 was issued to the complainant on his own life under Table and term 107-20 (15) for assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with DOC 23-3-1999 and agreed  to pay Rs.11,540/- under yearly mode for 15 years , 25% of the basic sum assured could be payable at the end of the specified duration as per the policy conditions i.e,  after 4 years on the date of commencement  of the policy provided the policy was  in force. The complainant assigned the  policy in favour of opposite party No. 3 on 24-02-2007 for valuable consideration . The 2^nd survival befit due on 23-03-2007 was settled by way of cheque No.154371 dated 23-03-2007 drawn infavour of opposite party No. 3. The cheque was returned undelivered . The opposite party No. 1 had made follow up with opposite party No. 3  to submit the discharge voucher  along with policy bond. The opposite party No. 1 informed to the complainant by way of registered letter dated 05-07-2007 to follow up with opposite party No. 3 to enable the opposite party No. 1 to take up the issue for fresh cheque. The opposite party No. 1 received a fresh discharge voucher on 06-08-2007 from opposite party No. 1 and cheque No. 97237 dated 06-08-2007  for Rs.25,000/- was issued in favour of opposite party No. 3 and same was dispatched by registered post  on 07-08-2007 and the cheque was  encashed  by opposite party No. 3 on 03-10-2007 . As opposite party No. 1 paid  the 2^nd survival benefit infavour of opposite party  No. 3 intime  , the complainant had no right over the policy.  Under Sec.38 of Insurance Act the complainant assigned the policy to opposite party No. 3 by transferring all rights for valuable consideration. Thus there was no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and complaint may be dismissed with costs.     

4.     The opposite party No. 3  was set – exparte  on 11-12-2008.

5.      On the basis of the above pleadings the points for consideration are  (i) whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 3 ?

(ii) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

(iii) To what relief?

6.                On behalf of the complainant  no documents has been marked . On behalf of  the opposite parties Ex.B1 to B4 were marked. The complainant examined the bank official  as PW.1 and marked Ex.X1 .

7.     Point No. 1 & 2 :  It was not a dispute that the complainant  had a policy bearing No. 652069943 for Rs.1,00,000/- as sum assured with annual premium of Rs.11,540/- obtained on 23-03-1999 under Table  and term 107-20 (15) and the policy was called 20 year Jeevan Surabhi Policy with profits  and benefits. The opposite parties filed a copy of the policy with terms and conditions  under Ex.B2. Under the policy  the policy holder would get 25% of the basic sum assured at every 4 years  from the date of commencement of the policy provided it would be in force. The complainant  with a view  to obtain a loan from opposite party  No. 3 i. e.  State Bank of India, Bajar Bank ,  Kurnool assigned the policy  to opposite party  No. 3 . The opposite party  No. 3 was entitled to receive  25% assured sum i.e, Rs.25,000/- from opposite party No. 1 towards loan amount. As on 23-03-2007 the complainant was entitled to receive Rs.25,000/- from opposite party No. 1. But the  opposite party  No.1 issued a cheque for Rs.25,000/- dated 23-03-2007 bearing cheque No. 154371 infavour  of State Bank of India , Bajar Branch , Kurnool but it was sent  to SBI , Main Branch , Kurnool instead of opposite party No. 3 .But SBI , Main Branch , Kurnool returned the cheque. It was the duty of the SBI  Main Branch , Kurnool to send the cheque  to opposite party No. 1  as mis-sent. Instead of it the SBI , Main Branch  returned  the cheque  to opposite party No. 1 . Later   the opposite party No. 1 informed  the same to the complainant  by  way of  registered letter  dated 25-07-2007 under Ex.B3 and  issued  a  fresh  cheque   bearing  No. 97237  dated 06-08-2007  to opposite party No. 3  . The opposite party NO. 3  issued an acknowledgement receipt for Rs.25,000/-  dated 06-08-2007 under Ex.B1 . The B4 was the letter addressed  by opposite party No. 1 dated 06-08-2007 to the SBI , Main Branch , Kurnool that the opposite party NO. 1 received the discharge form for Rs.25,000/- from opposite party No . 3 . So there was no deficiency of service on the part of the  opposite parties  1 and 2.

8.         The complainant examined  the Manger of opposite party No. 3 as PW.1  and marked Ex.X1. . The statement  of account relating  to the complainant . The PW.1 was the Branch Manager  to SBI , Bajar Brach , Kurnool who was set ex-parte in the main case. But he was examined as witness . The entire evidence of PW.1 disclosed that he had not gone through  the relevant  record in which he was  called for   to give sevidence. He admitted Ex.B1 a discharge voucher for Rs.25,000/- infavour   of opposite party No .1  . On 06-08-2007  his evidence was , in Ex.X1 the loan transaction  dated 06-08-2007 was not mentioned  . When the PW.1 admitted Ex.B1 it should be noted  in the statement of account under Ex.X1. However the amount of Rs.25,000/- payable by complainant to opposite party No . 3 was received on 06-08-2007 by opposite party No . 3 . There was no deficiency of service on the part of the   opposite parties 1 and 2.

9.     The complainant sought for a relief of Rs.25,000/- as policy amount from the  opposite parties 1 and 2 . The said amount was received  by opposite party No. 3 on behalf of the  complainant . So the complainant  was not entitled for receiving  back Rs.25,000/- from opposite parties  1 and 2.

10.    Point No. 3  : In the result , the complaint is allowed  directing opposite party No . 3 to verify the transaction   and account of the complainant  with its Main Branch and credit the money into the complainants account and later  debit into loan account of the  complainant . The case against  opposite parties  1 and 2 is dismissed without costs. No order for compensation for mental agony .     

   Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 06^th day of August, 2009.

     Sd/-                                                             Sd/-

LADY MEBER                                                    PRESIDENT (FAC)     

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined

For the complainant :               For the opposite parties :Nil

PW.1    Deposition of PW-1

(P. Venkat Rao ,Dt: 04-03-2009)

List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-

Ex.X1.         Statement of account.

List  of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:    

Ex.B1.          Discharge Voucher.

Ex.B2.          Policy bond issued to complainant .

Ex.B3.          Letter dated 25-07-2007 of LIC of India  , Kurnool

                   to the complainant .

Ex.B4.          Letter of LIC of India  dated 06-08-2007 to Manager,

                   to SBI Main Branch , Kurnool.

          Sd/-                                                            Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                            PRESIDENT (FAC)             

// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the

A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite parties

Copy was made ready on                :

Copy was dispatched on          :