SMT. RAVI SUSHA: PRESIDENT

Complainant filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 seeking direction to the 2^nd OP to pay Rs.25,000/- with bonus benefit together with Rs.50,000/- towards compensation from OPs and also give direction to OPs to release her policy certificate.

            The averments of the complaint are that the complainant is the policy holder of LIC policy having No.791876042.  She had availed housing loan from 1^st OP for which she had pledged the above said policy certificate to OP No.1 as additional collateral security.  But o 05/04/2014 the housing loan was transferred to SBI Kannur.  Then the entire documents except the above said policy certificate were handed over to her by OP No.1 for submitting before SBI Kannur.  Complainant stated that he had an impression that the said policy certificate was either kept in the safe custody of OP No.1 or sent to OP No.2.  The policy in dispute became matured on 28/12/2018.  Then she approached 2^nd OP for getting insured amount Rs.25,000/- and bonus eligible to her.  She sent request to OP No.2 for releasing the eligible amount.  Complainant further pleaded that then only she came to know that the policy certificate is in the custody of OP No.1.  When she contacted OP No.1 directly or through phone, they neither returned the certificate nor gave any reply.  So she sent a registered letter to OP No.1 on 30/12/2021.  But OP No.1 did not even sent reply.  According to her she contacted OP No.2 also for getting relief.  Complainant alleged that there is deficiency in service on the part of both OPs.  Hence this complaint.

            OPs resisted the allegations in the complaint by filing separate written version.  1^st OP submitted that complainant had availed Housing Loan of Rs.5,00,000/-  as per loan account No. 20030018697 dated 15/11/2008 from OP No.1 and Rs.8,40,000/- as per loan account No. 520700001178 dated 22/03/2014 from LIC Housing Finance Ltd., Area Office Kannur.  As an additional Collateral Security for the above loan, LIC policies vide Nos. 791876042, 790698118, 791877007,790357963, 794199218 and 790088363 were assigned in favour of LIC Housing Finance Ltd by the complainant.  Thereafter on 11/08/2016 at the request of the complainant the above Loan’s were pre closed and taken over by SBI.  On 06/09/2016 the entire documents including the above LIC Policies with re assignment letter were handed over to the complainant herself from LIC Housing Finance Ltd, Area Office Kannur and the complainant acknowledged the receipt of the same.  So now OP No.1 is not in possession or custody of any documents pertaining to the above loan of the complainant including the above LIC policies.  It is submitted that OP No.1 has received a letter from the complainant requesting that her above LIC Policy certificate has to be returned to her.  Upon receiving the above letter OP No.1 duly informed the complainant that the above policy with all other documents had already been handed over to her with due acknowledgment.  Even after that, OP No.1 extended their possible services to the complainant by issuing again Policy re-assignment letter and no due certificate to OP No.2 in order to facilitate the payment of maturity value of the above said LIC Policy to the complainant.  By timely service extended by OP No.1, the complainant was well convinced that the above policy was not with this OP No.1 and she was fully satisfied with the service of this OP No.1.  Under this circumstance OP No.1 had not replied for the above letter sent by complainant.  The complainant never came to the Office OP No.1 at any point of time after the closure of the above loan.  There was no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice form the OP No.1.  Hence prayed for the dismissed of complaints.

            2^nd OP submitted that it is admitted that the complainant had availed a housing loan from the 1^st OP for which the policy in dispute as NO.791876042 was assigned to LIC HFL by this party on 24/03/2009 and the bond was handed over the Policy holder on the same day to submit to LIC HFL.  The maturity of the said policy is on 28/01/2019 and th total amount payable as per policy condition is sum assured plus bonus.  This party has sent maturity claim intimation to assignee, 1^st OP on 29/10/2018 itself so as to submit requirements for the settlement of maturity claim due in 01/2019.  But the said requirements we rot received by this party and hence the settlement of maturity claim could not be paid on due date.  Since there exists a valid assignment to first party under the policy, claim settlement is not possible without getting all requirements for claim from the assignee.  Since it was not received in time this party could not settle the claim in time.  It is submitted that they understood that the said loan is taken over by SBI Kannur.    Further  is known that ht LIC HFL had no proof to see establish that the said policy bond was returned to policy holder, they submitted indemnity bond and all requirements for duplicate policy bond for maturity and re-assignment papers too, to this party.  Coupled with that the policy holder has submitted discharged form and her NEFT details to this party only on 31/12/2020.  Accordingly, on the same day the claim was settled for an amount of Rs. 43,551/- through NEFT.  Since this party has given the interest too, to the tune of Rs. 3275/- to the complainant, it is not correct to contend that the complainant has sustained any loss.  The delay of any for the settlement of claims was due to the non receipt of claim requirements from the assignee/assignor and which is not the fault of this party.  There is no deficiency of service from this party.  Hence prayed for the dismissal of complaint.

            Complainant in order to prove her case filed chief affidavit and documents.   Documents were marked as Ext.A1 to A4.  Premium deduction book of OP No.2 Ext.A1, letter issued by complainant to OP No.1 dated 30/12/2019 Ext. A2, Postal receipt Ext.A3, acknowledgement card Ext.A4. The complainant was cross examined for OPs 1 and 2.  The area Manager of OP No.1 at Kannur branch Mr. Sajikumar has filed chief affidavit and was examined as Dw1.  He has been cross examined for OP No.2 and marked Ext.B1 policy   re-assignment letter issued by OP No.1 to OP No.2 dated 03/12/2020.  Dw1 was also      cross-examined for complainant.

The question to be decided in this case are

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of any of the OPs?
2. If so what relief can be given to complainant?

Point 1 & 2

            Complainants case is that though her LIC policy NO.791876042 was matured on 28/12/2018, due to the deficiency in service on the part of OPs she could not get the insured amount Rs.25,000/- and bonus till the date of filing of this consumer complaint ie on 09/11/2020.  Further for getting the said amount she contacted OP 1 and OP 2 directly many times but did not get relief.  So filed this complaint for getting policy amount with bonus together with compensation.

            1^st OP contended that the policy certificate in dispute was already handed over to complainant along with other document and it was not with their possession.  OP No.1 further stated that on Ext.A2 letter dated 30/12/2019, from the complainant, they informed the complainant that the said policy with all other documents had already been handed over to her with due acknowledgment.  Even after that, they extended their possible services to the complainant by issuing again policy re-assignment letter and no due certificate to OP No.2 in order to facilitate the payment of maturity value to the complainant.  Hence there is no deficiency in service on their part.

            2^nd OP submitted that the policy bond in dispute was handed over to complainant on 24/03/2009 itself for submitting before OP No.1 as additional security to her housing loan.  Further submitted that though the said policy became matured on 28/01/2019, they sent maturity claim intimation to assignee OP NO.1 on 29/10/2018 itself.  But since the requirements such as policy bond, discharge certificate duly filled and signed by the assignee, ID proof and NEFT (bank) details of assignee to credit the amount to bank, were not received by OP No.2,  the settlement of maturity claim could not be  paid on due date.  OP No.2 also pleaded that as OP No.1 has no proof to establish, that the said policy bond was returned to complainant, OP No.1 submitted indemnity bond and all requirements for duplicate policy bond for maturity and re-assignment papers.  Along with that complainant had submitted discharge form and her NEFT details to OP No.2 only on 31/12/2020,  Accordingly on the same day the claim was settled for an amount of Rs. 43,553/- that is net amount Rs. 40276/- plus interest for the delay payment.  OP No.2 stated that delay for the settlement of claim was due to the non-receipt of claim requirements from the assignee (OP No.1) assignor which is not the fault of them.  According to OP No.2, there was no deficiency in service on their part and prayed for the dismissal of complaint against OP No.2.

            Here the testimony of Pw1 shows that OP1 had given re-assignment papers only during the pendency of this case and she had gone 4 times to the office of OP No.1 at Kozhikode. Further during cross-examination by OP No.2, she categorically deposed that the policy certificate in question was in possession of OP No.1.  Pw1 also stated that without surrendering the policy bond, OP no.2 could not disburse the sum assured and it is bonus and other OP No.2 could not disburse the sum assured and its bonus and further OP No.2 has given the policy amount with all benefits including interest for the late payment on the submission of details to them without any delay.  She does not have any objection with regard to the policy amount and interest given to her by OP No.2.

            On the testimony of DW1, the Kannur Area manager of OP No.1 shows that, the acknowledgment receipt clarifying the return of the disputed policy bond to complainant at the loan take over time is with their custody.  The ledger pertaining to that also with their possession but it is seen that neither ledger nor the acknowledgment receipt was not produced by OP No.1 before this commission to prove their contention.  Those documents are the concrete evidence of OP No.1 to substantiate their contention that in the policy certificate in dispute was not in their possession and they have rendered possible services to the complainant.  Dw1 deposed that those documents are at their head office at Ernakulam.  This is not an excuse for non-production of their documentary evidence.  Hence from the testimony of Pw1and Dw1, the contention raised by OP No.1 that they have handed over the entire documents including the LIC policy in question cannot be believed.

            The next point to be decided is whether either of the OPs committed delay in getting the policy amount to the complainant.

            Ext. A2 shows that complainant sent registered letter to OP No.1 on 30/12/2019 demanding to take steps to get release of her policy certificate in dispute, pledged before them at the time of taking the housing loan.  Ext.A3 is the postal receipt shows that the notice sent on 01/02/2020 and Ext. A4 shows that the notice received by OP No.1 on 05/02/2020.  Ext. B1 shows that 03/12/2020 OP1 sent request letter along with                 re-assignment letter to OP No.2

            From the above said documentary evidence it is established that the policy in dispute was became matured on 28/12/2018, but OP No.1 has taken steps for issuing duplicate policy bond by OP No.2 only on 03/12/2020 after receiving the notice of this consumer complaint from the commission. Here OP1 failed to substantiate the contention that they have returned the policy bond to complainant along with other documents.  OP No.1 could have issued re-assignment letter to OP2 at the time of approaching the complainant to their office.  From the version of OP No.2 and also from the oral evidence of Pw1, clears that OP No.2 has settled the policy with delayed interest to complainant on receiving the claim requirement paper.

            Hence from the available evidence oral and document, we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service or unfair practice on the par t of OP No.2,  but there is gross deficiency in service and unfair practice on the side of 1^st OP.  Hence complainant is entitled to get compensation from the 1^st OP for the mental agony and financial loss caused to her.  Here, there is no use to order to return the policy bond to complainant, because she had already received the policy amount with all benefits.

Point 1and 2 found in favour of complainant.

            Considering the facts and circumstance of this case, we are inclined to allow this compliant.

            In the result complaint is allowed in part opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing the amount carriers interest @12% per annum from the date of order of this complaint till realization.  Complainant is at liberty to realize the ordered amount from 1^st opposite party by filing execution application against opposite party No.1 as per the provisions envisaged in Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Exts.

A1       - Premium deduction book of OP No.2

A2       - letter issued by complainant to OP No.1 dated 30/12/2019

A3       - Postal receipt

A4       - acknowledgement card

B1       - policy   re-assignment letter issued by OP No.1 to OP No.2 dated 03/12/2020.

PW1   - Complainant

DW1   - Sajikumar-OP No.1

      Sd/                                                                          Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                                                   MEMBER                                                   MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                                               Molykutty Mathew                                     Sajeesh K.P

(mnp)

/Forward by order/

Assistant Registrar