C.F. CASE No.          : CC/09/20                                                                                                         

 

COMPLAINANT             ::  Naba Kumar Dutta

S/o Late Gokul Chandra Dutta,

of Vill. Bethuadahari Station Road,

Grantha Bipani, P.O. Bethuadahari,

P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia.

 

 

       –  Vs  – 

 

 

OPPOSITE PARTY/OP        :: 1. Branch Manager,

United Bank of India

Vill. Bethuadahari, P.S. Nakashipara,

P.O. Bethuadahari, Dist. Nadia.

 

 

PROFORMA OP            :: 2. Branch Manager 

L.I.C. Office, Krishnagar Branch, 

5/1, A.D.L. Roy Road, 

P.O. Krishnagar, P.S. Kotwali,

Dist. Nadia.  

 

 

 

PRESENT              :  SHRI DILIP KUMAR BASU                     PRESIDENT

             :  KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY              MEMBER

           

 

DATE OF DELIVERY             

OF  JUDGMENT               :    28th May , 2009.

 

 

:    J U D G M E N T    :

 

The fact of the complainant's case, in a nutshell, is as follows. 

2

The complainant, Naba Kumar Dutta has filed this case against the OP No. 1, Branch Manager, United Bank of India, Vill. Bethuadahari, P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia and proforma opposite party, Branch Manager, L.I.C. Office, Krishnagar Branch alleging that the complainant had a cash-credit account being No. CCRTL135 in the Bank of the opposite party No. 1 and took loan from the OP Bank amounting to Rs. 25,000/-, 50,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively and deposited the L.I.C. Certificate and other papers to the OP's Office.   The number of L.I.C. Policy of the complainant is 420108842.   After repayment of loan, he requested the OP to return the said LIC Policy.   By this time he obtained a letter from the proforma OP's office that his LIC Policy has been matured.   Several times he contacted with the Bank for getting back his LIC Policy but in vein.   On 26.12.08 he wrote a letter with the request to return the said policy.  On 25.02.09 he again wrote a letter with a request to retuning the said policy.   The Bank informed the complainant that the said LIC policy has been lost from their custody.  By filing the instant case he has prayed for a direction to return the original LIC policy, compensation Rs. 50,000/- for harassment and mental agony, cost and other relief. 

The OP No. has appeared in the case by sending a letter communicating that they have paid Rs. 12,490/- to the complainant through a cheque, the matured amount.   They have also sent a xerox copy of the said cheque.  

In view of the above facts and circumstances the following points are taken for proper adjudication.

Point No.1:        Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OP No. 1?

Point No.2:        Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?

 

FINDING WITH REASONS

 

Both the points are taken together for sake of convenience and for the 

3

purpose of avoiding needless repetitions. 

The Ld. Lawyer of the complainant has argued that it is fact that a cheque of Rs. 12,490/- has been paid by the OP No. 1 during pendency of this case.   But the complainant after getting loan from the OP Bank keeping the LIC policy as security has to suffer mental agony and harassment due to loss of  LIC policy of the complainant.   He has further argued that the complainant is a senior citizen and he has to knock several times requesting the OP for return of the LIC policy.   He suffered immense mental agony while he received the letter that his policy was matured and being failure to procure the said policy from the OP Bank, he was debarred from getting money from the said policy.   As such, he claims compensation and cost.

The xerox copy of the letter dtd. 26.12.08 and 25.02.09 manifests that he placed request to the OP Bank for returning the LIC policy.

The letter issued by the United Bank of India, vide reference No. BTD/LIP/1197/05 dtd. 09.12.2005 reflects that the Bank Authority intimated the complainant as to lost of the said policy.

It can easily be imagined that being informed as to loss of the  LIC policy in the month of December, 2005 how much agony he has to suffer. 

The letter, dtd. 26.12.08 and 25.02.09 reveals that he requested the Bank Authority for return of the LIC policy.  Besides, the complaint reflects that being a senior citizen how much he has to take trouble to go to the said Bank once and again.  

Admitted fact that he has received payment.  But as per argument of the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant, we cannot ignore the sufferance and mental agony of the complainant for procurement of the said policy.

Considering  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  we are of opinion that if Rs. 

10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only is awarded as compensation to the complainant, 

4

then that may alleviate the harassment and agony. 

Considering the above aspect we are of opinion that obviously there caused deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get compensation.

The points are accordingly decided.

Hence,

Ordered,

That the case is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 5,00/- (Rupees five hundred) only.  The complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only as compensation.

As the complainant has got the dues as per LIC policy during the pendency of this case, we pass no direction to return the original  LIC policy to the complainant.   

The OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs. 500/- as cost and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation in all Rs. 10,500/- (Rupees ten thousand five hundred) only to the complainant within 40 days from the date of this order failing which the amount shall accrue interest @ 10% per annum from this day till realization of the entire amount. 

Hand over a copy of this order to the parties free of cost.

The case is disposed of by one month.

 

Dictated & corrected by me.

 

  (D.K. Basu)

    President         

C.D.R.F., Nadia

        (K. Mukhopadhyay)           (D.K. Basu)

Member             President            

           C.D.R.F., Nadia      C.D.R.F., Nadia