West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/153/2014

Tapan Kumar Ojha - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager, L.I.C.I. & Other. - Opp.Party(s)

21 Jan 2016

ORDER

                                                              DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President, Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

and

 Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.153/2014

                                                        

                                        Tapan Kumar Ojha………………….….……Complainant.

Versus

 

1)Branch Manager, L.I.C.I., Barapathan Cantonment;

2)Divisional Manager, L.I.C.I, Kharagpur....…..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr.  Nirmal Kumar Dey, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Swapan Bhattacharjee, Advocate.

 

Decided on: -21/01/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President :– Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is a bona fide consumer under the opposite parties–Life Insurance Corporation of  India and he purchased more than 17 policies from the Op-L.I.C.I.  Due to urgent need of money, the complainant used to take loan from the opposite party no.1 by depositing his original policy paper and after repayment of loan amount with interest, the opposite party no.1 used to return back the original policy paper to the complainant by registered post with an endorsement “Loan amount paid policy bond released”.  In this way, the complainant took loan of Rs.11,500/- on 11/06/2004 from the opposite party no.1 by depositing his policy paper in respect of policy no.432136912 and after due repayment of loan amount with interest, the original policy paper was returned by the opposite party no.1 by registered post.  Thereafter on 02/07/2007, the complainant took loan of

Contd……………..P/2

 

 

 

 

( 2 )

Rs.21,000/- from the opposite party no.1 by depositing his said original policy paper and after repayment of loan amount with interest, opposite party no.1 returned back the original policy paper to the complainant by registered post.  Thereafter, again on 19/034/2013, the complainant took loan of Rs.14,200/- from the opposite party no.1 by depositing his said policy paper.  On 09/09/2013, when the complainant went to the office of the opposite party no.1 at Medinipur Branch, then the opposite party no.1 told the complainant to deposit total amount of Rs.49,219/- for repayment of the loan amount.  It was also told to the complainant that unless the complainant repays the said loan amount, they will not return the original policy paper to the complainant.  In such situation, complainant was compelled to deposit the total amount of Rs.49,219/- in the office of the opposite party no.1 which was illegally claimed by the opposite party no.1.  Thereafter on 22/04/2014, the complainant submitted a prayer to the Branch Manager of opposite party no.2 for returning the excess amount of Rs.34,261/- with interest to the complainant but the Branch Manager did not take any step to refund the said excess amount.  The complainant, therefore, informed the aforesaid matter to the Divisional Manager of L.I.C.I at Kharagpur but the opposite party no.2 did not direct the opposite party no.1 to refund the said amount to the complainant.  It is stated that the opposite party no.1 had no right to claim the arrear dues after putting endorsement “Loan amount paid policy bond released”.  Hence the complaint praying for directing the opposite parties to pay the excess amount of  Rs.34,216/-  with interest till payment,  to pay adequate damages to the tune of Rs.50,000/-  for unnecessary harassment and for other reliefs.

                 Both the opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written objection. Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite parties that the complainant is a bona fide policy holder of L.I.C.I. and he made an application for loan before the opposite party no.1 for the first time in the year 2004.  After considering his said application, a sum of Rs.11,500/- only as loan was paid to the complainant on 12/06/2004, subject to mortgage of policy certificate.  The complainant thereafter repaid the said loan amount on 08/12/2006.  After such repayment, the complainant made another application for further loan to the tune of Rs.21,000/- and the same was sanctioned after mortgaging the policy certificate.  The complainant could not pay the said loan amount and as such the complainant was liable to pay Rs.21,000/- only as outstanding loan amount and Rs.11,792/- only as outstanding interest up to March 2013.  Thereafter the complainant against made an application for further loan in the month of 2013 and an amount of Rs.47,000/- only was sanctioned in his favour on 19/03/2013. 

Contd……………..P/3

 

 

 

 

( 3 )

After deduction of outstanding previous loan amount of Rs.21,000/- plus interest of Rs.11,792/-,  a sum of Rs.14,208/- only was credited  in the Bank A/C no.11360275532 of the complainant and the said fact was duly intimated to the complainant by the opposite parties vide their letter dated 19/03/2013.  The said letter has been filed as annexure–A.  After getting that intimation, the complainant did not raise any objection and he subsequently paid outstanding loan amount with interest without any objection.  He also got all secured documents from the opposite party and thereafter with some ill motive, the complainant has filed this case.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and therefore the present complaint is liable to be rejected.  It is further submitted that O.P.-L.I.C.I. is a world class organization of the Government of India and the opposite parties did not receive any amount illegally from the complainant.  The complainant has not come in clean hands and the petition of complaint is also therefore liable to be rejected.  

Point for decision

                      Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for  ?    

                   

Decision with reasons

    To prove his case, the  complainant has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief and during his evidence, the original policy documents has been marked as exhibit-1 and the other two documents in three sheets were marked as X,   X-1 respectively for identification.  On the other hand, opposite parties have examined one Ashoke Kumar Ganguly,  the Manager of the opposite party as OPW-1 and  during his evidence on oath, a statement of account has been marked as exhibit-A.  During his cross-examination, one endorsement on rubber stamp on exhibit -1 was marked as exhibit 1/1 and one xerox copy of application of the complainant was marked as exhibit-2.

 It is not denied and disputed that the complainant is a consumer under the opposite parties having his L.I.C policy with the Op-L.I.C.I.    Admittedly, after depositing his L.I.C. policy being no.432136912, complainant took loan of Rs.11,500/- from the opposite party no.1 on 11/06/2004 and after due repayment of the said loan amount with interest, the complainant again took loan of Rs.21,000/- on 02/07/2007 from the opposite party no.1.  According to the complainant, he made payment of the said loan amount of Rs.21,000/- with interest and thereafter he again took loan of Rs.14,200/- on 19/03/2013 from the opposite party no.1.  It is alleged by the complainant that thereafter on 09/09/2013 when he went to the office of opposite party no.1 then he was told by the opposite party no.1 to deposit a sum

Contd……………..P/4

 

 

 

 

( 4 )

of Rs.49,219/- for repayment of loan amount and he was further told that unless he paid the said amount, the original policy paper will not be returned to him and in such circumstances the complainant was bound to deposit the total amount of  Rs.49,219/- in the office of the opposite party no.1 which was illegally claimed by the opposite party no.1.  The present complaint has been filed for a direction upon the of opposite party no.1 to return the excess amount of Rs.34,261/- with interest as in spite of submitting a prayer for return of the said amount, the opposite party no.1 did not return the excess amount as aforesaid.  As against this, the case of the opposite party as appears from their written objection as well as from the evidence of opposite party no.1 that after obtaining second loan of Rs.21,000/- on 02/07/2007, the complainant did not repay the same with interest and on basis of his application for further loan, an amount of Rs.47,000/- was sanctioned as loan in favour of the complainant by the opposite party no.1 on 19/03/2013 and after deduction of outstanding loan amount of Rs.21,000/- and outstanding interest of Rs.11,792/-, an amount of Rs.14,208/- was credited to the bank account of the complainant and the staid fact was duly intimated by the opposite party to the complainant vide their letter dated 19/03/2013.

   So, according to the complainant he made full payment of the second loan of Rs.21,000/- with interest and thereafter he again took loan of Rs.14,208/-.  But according to the opposite party, the complainant did not repay the said loan of Rs.21,000/- with interest and when he approached for third loan, then an amount of Rs.47,000/- was sanctioned as loan in favour of the complainant on 19/03/2013 and after deduction of the outstanding loan  amount of Rs.21,000/- and interest of Rs.11,792/-, remaining sum of Rs.14,208/- was credited in the bank account of the complainant.  Since the complainant has made out a case that he repaid the second loan of Rs.21,000/- with interest to the opposite party no.1, so burden lies upon him to prove that he made such payment.  In his cross-examination, the complainant has admitted that after repayment, Op-L.I.C.I. issued receipt to him but he has not filed such receipt regarding payment of the disputed loan.  He stated nothing as to what prevented him to file such receipt in this case to show and to prove that he paid the disputed loan amount of Rs.21,000/- with interest to the opposite party.  On the contrary, the opposite party has filed a sanction letter dated 19/03/2013 thereby showing that the sum of Rs.47,000/- was sanctioned as loan after adjustment of the previous loan of Rs.21,000/- and interest of Rs.11,792/-, a sum of Rs.14,208/- was credited in the account of the complainant.  This document clearly supports the case of the opposite party that the said sum of Rs.14,208/- was deposited in the account of the complainant after deduction of Rs.32,792/- as previous loan and interest thereon from the sanctioned loan of Rs.47,000/-.  The

Contd……………..P/5

 

 

 

 

( 5 )

complainant has denied that he was granted  loan of  Rs.47,000/-.  According to him, his third loan was of Rs.14,208/- on basis of his prayer.  In his cross-examination, this complainant as PW-1 has stated that for obtaining loan from the Op-L.I.C.I., he submitted necessary application and in the said loan application he mentioned the amount of loan required by him.  No such copy of loan application has been filed by the complainant to show that he actually prayed for loan of Rs.14,2000/- and not for Rs.47,000/-.  We have already stated that the complainant failed to prove his case of repayment of the second loan of  Rs.21,000/- with interest by producing the alleged receipts of payment, so  issued to him as admitted in his cross-examination.  So under no stretch of imagination it can be held that the opposite party actually paid the second loan of Rs.21,000/- with interest to the opposite party.   It is also to be stated here that in his petition of complaint, the complainant has made out a case that on 09/09/2013 when he went to the office of the opposite party no.1, then he was told to deposit total of Rs.49,219/- in default his policy bond will not be refunded and in such situation he was bound to deposit the said sum of Rs.49,219/- in the office of the opposite party no.1.  Regarding such claim, the complainant also produced no scrap of paper like receipts of deposit of  Rs.49,219/- to show and to prove that he deposited the said sum in the office of the opposite party no.1.  On the contrary, we find from the letter dated 19/03/2013 of the opposite party no.1 which was addressed to the complainant that Rs.47,000/- sanctioned as loan in favour of the complainant and from that amount of Rs.47,000/-,  a sum of Rs.21,000/- and Rs.11,792/- was deducted towards outstanding loan and interest thereon and the balance amount of Rs.14,208/- was credited in the savings account of the complainant.  Relying on the policy document and particularly Exhibit 1/1, Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that when the loan is fully paid, then the policy bond is returned to the complainant after putting seal stating “Loan Repaid and Policy Bond Returned”.  Relying upon those seal on the policy bond, Ld. Lawyer of the complainant submitted that this document proves payment of the loan amount by the complainant. We find no substance in the said argument of the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant because we have already found from the letter dated 19/03/2013 of the Op-L.I.C.I.  that the 2^nd loan of Rs.21,000/- and interest thereon was deducted from the 3^rd loan of Rs.47,000/- and in such circumstances it is natural that such stamp would be given after such adjustment of previous loan. So the said argument does not help the complainant to prove his case of repayment of 2^nd loan Rs.21,000/- in time.

  In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that

Contd……………..P/6

 

 

 

 

 

 

( 6 )

there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Op-LICI  and therefore the complainant is not entitled to get any relief, as prayed for.

                                                                 Hence, it is,

                                                                     Ordered,

                                                                               that the complaint case no.153/2014  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

 

               Dictated & Corrected by me

             

                           President                           Member             Member                   President

                                                                                                                            District Forum

                                                                                                                          Paschim Medinipur