BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,  ADDITIONAL BENCH,                                                                                                   MANGALORE

Dated this the 29^th   November 2016

PRESENT

       SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D  : HONBLE PRESIDENT

       SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR                :HONBLE MEMBER

ORDER IN

C.C.No.190/2013

(Admitted on 09.07.2013)

S. Keshav Murthy,

Aged about 58 years,

S/o Sidde Gowda,

R/O K.E.B quarters, E.B 13, Haradi,

Bannur village,

Puttur D.K.

                                                        ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri HKB)

VERSUS

1. Manager

    Life Insurance Corporation of India,

   Puttur Branch, Puttur D.K.

2. Manager,

    Canara Bank Main Branch Post Box No-6,

    Modern Complex Main Road Belur,

    Belur Taluk, Hasan District.

                                                            …..........OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1: Sri. MSKP)

(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2: Sri. NKB)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HONBLE  MEMBER

SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR:

I.       1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against opposite party claiming certain relief from opposite party No.1 and No./2 to pay Rs.65,264  together with 12% interest as damages.

        2.  In support of the above complainant Mr. S. Keshav Murthy filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and answered the interrogatories served on him and produced documents got marked Ex C1 to C3 detailed in the annexure here below.  On behalf of the opposite parties Mr. N.G. Shylendra Udupa, Chief Manager, Canara Bank, (Rw1) and Mrs. M. Jacintha Pais, Manager, L & HPF, LIC of India also filed affidavit evidence and answered the interrogatories served on them and produced documents  as got marked Ex.R1 to R5 detailed in the annexure here below.

The brief facts of the case are as under:

We have perused the complaint and the version averments. This dispute is with regard to the delayed payment of LIC policy payment on maturity. The complainant is has obtained a policy from the Opposite party No 1 the LIC Of India and for his availing loan from the Opposite party No 2 has assigned the Lic Certificate for security purpose. The policy even though matured on 15.03.2012 the opposite party no 1 has paid the maturity amount only on 30.03.2013. The policy was with the opposite party no 2 and he was bound to maintain the policy. The opposite party no 1 contested on the ground that as per usual practice the notice of maturity sent to the opposite party no 2 and also follow up correspondence made as the policy was assigned to them. The opposite party no 2 has not responded properly and not send the discharge voucher and the policy bond in original before maturity date. As such there is no deficiency of service from their part. The opposite party no 2 defence is that, they have not received any information either from Opposite party no 1 or from the complainant with regard to maturity of the policy and hence they could not send the original policy documents to the Opposite party no 1 for encashment. These are being the facts of dispute we are of the opinion that the following points may be considered for adjudication and resolving the dispute.

POINTS FOR ADJUDICATION

On examination of the evidence and the documents the admitted facts are the assignment of the Lic policy bond taken form the opposite party no 1 by the complainant with the Opposite party no 2 for the loan availed. It is admitted that there is no loan balance as it is not alleged anywhere by the Opposite party no 2. The maturity of LIC bond and the maturity payment delayed by one year to the complainant is also admitted by the Opposite parties. The amount of maturity is also not in dispute. The dispute encompass around who is responsible and liable for the delay in payment. The opposite party no 1blames the opposite party no 2 for not sending the original bond and the discharge voucher in time in spite of prior information before maturity and the opposite party no 2 is liable for the complainant. The opposite party no 2 denies the prior information being sent to them by the opposite party no 1 and contends they only have taken initiative after complainant had informed them about maturity and got the amount of maturity from the Opposite party no 1 by sending the required documents. For the delayed period the amount was with the opposite party no 1 and hence they are liable to the complainant. So in our opinion the dispute can be resolved by deciding the following points.

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ?
2. Which opposite party is liable for the deficiency in service towards the complainant?
3. Whether the complainant entitled for the relief prayed for?
4. What order?

After careful consideration of facts and evidence and the legal position and after hearing the parties we answered the above points as under:

1. In the affirmative against opposite party no 2.
2. Opposite party no 2.
3. In the affirmative.
4. As per delivered order.

REASON

POINT NO 1: The complainant has taken an LIC policy from the opposite party no 1is admitted. The complainant has availed a loan from the opposite party no 2 is also admitted. Meanwhile for the availing of loan the complainant has assigned the LIC policy to the Opposite party no 2 is also admitted by all the parties. Hence there is no doubt the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party no 2. But the doubt is whether the complainant is consumer to the opposite party no 1 the LIC of India by the reason of the assignment as with regard to the disputed policy is concern. The effect of assignment as per law is

   An assignment has an effect of directly transferring the rights of the transferor in respect of the property transferred. Immediately on execution of an assignment of the Policy of life assurance the assignor forgoes all his rights, title and interest in the Policy to the assignee. The premium/loan interest notices etc. in such cases will be sent to the assignee. In case the assignment is made in favour of public bodies, institutions, trust etc., premium notices/receipts will be addressed to the official who has been designated by the institutions as a person to receive such notice. An assignment of a life insurance policy once validly executed, cannot be cancelled or rendered in effectual by the assignor. Scoring of such assignments or super scribing words like cancelled on such assignment does not annul the assignment. And the only way to cancel such assignment would be to get it re-assigned by the assignee in favour of the assignor. The same view also held in State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission west Bengal in the judgement of Bidhu Bhusan Sarkar vs Lici on 21 November, 2014andState Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Wes Bengal KOLKATA-700 087.   S.C. CASE NO FA/369/12 The assignee, as soon as the assignment is duly made by the assignor and endorsed by the insurance company , becomes eligible for all rights associated with the policy.  In the present case the assignee appears to have been recognized by the insurance company and as such the insurance company has no ground to deny the accepted position of the assignee.

  The settled view is as for as the disputed policy is concern the assignee the opposite party no 2 is the consumer and not the complainant herein and he do not have any local standy in asking relief with the opposite party no 1. As such we answered point no 1 in affirmative against opposite party no 2 only.

POINT NO 2: The dispute between the Opposite party no 1 and the Opposite party no 2 is that both of them indexing to each other as liable to the complainant. As we already decided the relationship between the complainant and the opposite party no 1 is not consumer and the service provider on account of assignment and effect of assignment, the opposite party no 1 is not liable to the complainant.

   Now little analysis of the facts required for deciding whether the opposite party no 2 is liable and for what extent. The opposite party no 1 contended that they have sent the information of maturity to the opposite party no 2 being assignee in advance before the date of maturity as on 12.12.2011and produced EX R1to that effect, and again on 03.03.2012 sent a reminder to furnish discharge voucher and the policy documents in original for arranging for the payment of maturity amount and produced a copy of the letter dated 03.03.2012 addressed to opposite party no 2. The same copy is produced by the complainant also as EX C3. Even after not getting any reply from the opposite party no 2 again written a letter dated 17.01.2013 and received the required form duly completed on 06.03.2013 and the payment made of Rs. 102203/ on 13.03.2013 and received by the bank on 15.03.2013. The opposite party no 2 has denied having received the intimation of any kind and states that the complainant informed him in the month of Dec, 2012  about the maturity of policy and immediately surrendered the policy to the opposite party no 1 Puttur Branch for payment but the opposite party no 1 did not answer. In interrogatories it is not established that the complainant had approached the opposite party no 2 and informed about maturity in Dec 2012.  But the position of law is as stated earlier once the policy is assigned, the assignee will enter the shoes of the assigner for all rights, liabilities and obligations and maintenance of the policy. The policy held to be a movable property and money document.It is needless to say the Opposite party no 2 is the holder of the policy assigned and in possession of the assigned original document is solely responsible for the effective payment on maturity. The opposite party no 2 is duty bound to get payment on the right time. The marked documents shows the opposite party no 1 have sent the intimation well in advance to the opposite party no 2 in two occasions before maturity to arrange payment in time. The first correspondence from the opposite party no 2 to the opposite party no 1 is on 09.01.2013.  The other fact to consider is there is no dispute with regard to loan is being cleared by the complainant and opposite party no 2 is obliged to re assign the policy in favour of the complainant which has not been done.  In our opinion the opposite party no 2 is liable to the complainant as a service provider and hence we answered the point no 2 as opposite party no 2 liable for deficiency in service.

POINT NO 3:  Since we hold the opposite party no 2 is liable for deficiency of service the complainant is entitled for the relief. He   had sought for interest of 12% for the delayed period and compensation of 50000/ for mental agony and hardship. We are of opinion to say the rate of interest at 9% on maturity amount is reasonable.  With regard to compensation we are of the opinion that an amount of  Rs. 25000/ will sub serve the purpose even though there is negligence but not that much grave to award Rs. 50000/  as compensation and the interest is awarded for the delayed period from the date of maturity till the date of crediting to complainant’s Account. The litigation expenses asked reasonable by the complainant the same deserved to be awarded an amount of Rs. 3000/ The opposite party no 1 is discharged from the liability.

POINT NO 4: In the light of above discussion and adjudication of points we pass the following

ORDER

     The complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party no 2. and dismissed against the opposite party no 1.The opposite party no 2 shall pay the complainant an amount of Rs 25000/ towards compensation and an interest at 9% per annum on the maturity amount from the date of maturity till the date of amount credited to the complainant and an amount of Rs. 3000/ towards litigation expenses within 30 days from the date of copy of the order received.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 9 directly typed by member revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 29^th November 2016)

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1  Mr. Keshav Murthy

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:

Ex C1: 11.06.2013  : copy of the Legal notice

Ex C1(a) (b) (c)       : Postal acknowledgement

Ex C2: 22.06.2013    : Reply letter to legal notice  by opposite party No.2

Ex C3: 17.06.2013    : LIC Policy

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:

RW1:  Mr.N.G Shylendra Udupa, Chief Manager, Canara Bank

Rw2:  Mrs. M. Jacintha Pais, Manager, L & HPF, LiC of India

Documents markedon behalf of the Opposite Parties:

Ex.R1: 12.12.2011     : Office copy of letter of LIC of India Puttur to Canara Bank

Ex.R2: 09.01.2013     : Office copy of letter of opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1

Ex.R3: 05.03.2013      : Office copy of letter of opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1

Ex.R4: 15.03.2012       : Photocopy of cheque bearing No.779656 for Rs.1,02,203

Ex.R5: 17.06.2013       : Office copy of reply issued by Opposite party No.1 to complainant s  advocate

Dated:  29.11.2016                             MEMBER