Sri Jagadish Chandra Barman, MEMBER,
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant may be summarised as follows:-
This is a complaint case under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.The Complainants Dr. Jay Prakash Gupta and Dr. Anjana Devi Gupta, Ramkrishna Dham, Doltala Puratan Bazer, P. O. + P. S. –Baruipur, Kolkata -700144 took a house building loan from the Central Bank of India, Subhashgram Branch, 3, K. C. Bose Road, P.O.- Kodalia, P. S.- Sonarpur, Kolkata-700146. Their loan account no. is -HBL 1861871871889 [Old no- HBL A/C No- HBG-79 & T/L-1/66].It was taken by the complainants to extend the existing building construction. For the purpose of sanctioning the House Building Loan, Searching Report of the land was prepared by the empanelled lawyer of the O.Ps. For that reason, Ld. empanelled advocate of the O. Ps. took Rs. 10,000=00 only but no receipt was issued.
The O.P.no-2 inspected the land and building, searching report of the complainants as well as sanctioned the House Building Loan as per banking law and norms. The Opposite parties took as collateral security some important documents namely Original deed of land, porcha, sanctioned plan, estimate of the construction, searching certificate and two LIC Deeds in the name of the complainants vide nos. -415713486 and 415713853 of sum assured Rs. 1 lakh each.
Later, the complainants repaid the house building loan to the O.Ps. through the cheque vide no- 699163 of Rs. 1,69,020.15 only dated 26/8/2019 of the State Bank of India, Baruipur branch.
Thereafter, one of the Complainants Dr. Jayprakash Gupta sent a letter on 31/8/2019 to the Sr. Manager of the Central Bank of India with the request to return the documents of collateral securities namely Original deed of land, porcha, sanctioned plan, estimate of the construction, searching certificate and two LIC policies in the name of the complainants vide nos. -415713486 and 415713853 of sum assured Rs. 1 lakh each.
Without getting some important documents, the complainant Dr. Jay Prakash Gupta again wrote to the Sr. Manager on 24/2/2021 in which he [complainant] mentioned that he did not get back original sanctioned plan, original Porcha of the land, copy of estimate of the house building, original searching certificate of the land etc.
In the 2nd para of the letter, the complainant pointed out that both complainants had deposited 2 LIC Policies bearing no- 415713853 dated 28/3/2003 in the name of Dr. Jayprakash Gupta, and 415713486 dated 28/3/2003 in the name of Dr. Anjana Devi Gupta. It was the legal expectation of the complainants that the Central Bank of India would pay the LIC premiums as per Banking Law and Practice under para [v] of page 247, “the policy is a tangible security and is in the custody of the bank. The banker only has to ensure that regular payment of premiums is made.” It is also clearly mentioned in same page under para [iii] “The banker should ensure the regular payment of premium.” But the O. P. No1, 2 did not pay the required premiums of both LIC Policies.
As per statement of the complainants, there was a scope to restore the lapsed policies by the O.Ps. For this reason, Revival Quotation was provided in the account statement dated 27/01/2021 by the KMDO-I LIC Branch code 422. Total revival amount to pay was then [15/01/2021 to 10/02/2021] Rs. 1,47,020.00 approximately for the policy of Dr. Jay Prakash Gupta and Rs. 1,44,079.00 approximately for the policy of Dr. Anjana Devi Gupta. But the revival scope of the LIC Policies was also not utilized by the Opposite Parties.
Consequently, due to negligence of the Opposite Parties, the LIC Policies had been lapsed and both LIC policy holders became unprotected/uncovered
Thereafter, finding no alternatives and aggrieved upon the O.Ps., the Complainants filed this instant case on 17/8/2021 before this learned Commission for adjudication of the complaint and the Petitioners/Complainants have sought the following relieves :-
- An order be issued directing the O. Ps. to return the original Sanctioned Plan, Porcha of the land, original document for estimate the property which was sanctioned by the Baruipur Municipality and original Searching Certificate;
- An order be issued directing the O. Ps. to publish the matter of lost documents, if any, in Bengali, Hindi and English newspapers at the cost of the O.Ps. and to lodge FIR in the concerned police station;
- An order be issued directing the O. Ps. to issue a Certificate of lost documents to the complainants;
- An order be issued directing the O. Ps. to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation amount for mental agony, pain and harassment, Rs. 25,00,000/- only as penalty for losing the original documents, lapsing the LIC Policies; and
- Any other order be issued as Ld. Commission may deem fit.
Thereafter, the Ld. Commission sent the show cause notices upon the Opposite Parties and the notices were served satisfactorily. The Opposite Parties filed their written version on 7th day of October 2021.In the W. V., the O. Ps. opine that this case is not maintainable and there is no cause of action. The O. Ps. denied all disputes and allegations mentioned in the complaint petition. The O. Ps. mentioned that no payment of Rs. 10.000 for searching the property was done by the complainants to the advocate of empanelled lawyer for the CB of India but it was paid by the O. Ps.
The O. Ps. admitted that the complainants paid the settled amount only under the scheme of N.D.N.D. [Non-discretionary/ Non-discriminatory]. As per statement of W. V., the complainants became non-performing assets because they did not pay the dues.
As per statement of the O. Ps., the Bank is only the custodian of the collateral security and there is no terms and conditions to pay the premiums of the LIC Policies. According to the O. Ps., the Policy holders are responsible to pay the premiums of the LIC Policies for their own benefit. Hence, the O. Ps. are not responsible for lapsing the Life Insurance Policies under their custody. So the O. Ps. have not done any negligence, unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainants and they are not liable to pay any compensation amount and litigation cost.
Upon the averments of the complaint petition and W. V.etc of the both sides, the following points are formulated:-
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION
1]. Are the complainants consumer?
2] Are the O. Ps. guilty of deficiency of services, negligence and unfair trade practice as alleged by the complainant?
3] Are the complainants entitled to get relief /relieves as prayed for?
EVIDENCES, BNA OF THE COMPLAINANTS AND O. Ps.
The Complainants filed an application on 15/12/2021 to treat their complaint petition as evidences on affidavit. Ld. Commission considered and allowed the petition. Both parties filed their respective Brief Notes of Arguments in time.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS.
Points no. 1, 2, & 3.
The Complainants Dr. Jay Prakash Gupta and Dr. Anjaona Devi Gupta both had availed House Building Loan from the O. Ps. vide loan account no is -HBL 1861871871889 [Old no- HBL A/C No- HBG-79 & T/L-1/66]. For this purpose, the Complainants deposited some important documents namely Original deed of land, porcha, sanctioned plan, estimate of the construction, searching certificate and two LIC policies in the name of the both complainants vide nos. -415713486 and 415713853 of sum assured Rs. 1 lakh each.
Hence, the complainants are ConsumerS under definition of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the Opposite Parties are service provider in this instant case vide no C. C. 91/2021 as the O.Ps. got consideration amount from the Complainants in the form of interest.
In relation to point for determination no 2 ‘’Are the O. Ps. guilty of deficiency in services, negligence and unfair trade practice’’ as alleged by the complainants?”, it is very much worthy to mention that both the Complainants had deposited 2 LIC Policies bearing no- 415713853 dated 28/3/2003 in the name of Dr. Jay Prakash Gupta of assured sum of Rs. 1, 00,000=00 only and No 415713486 dated 28/3/2003 in the name of Dr. Anjana Devi Gupta of assured sum of Rs. 1,00,000=00 only. It was the legal expectation of the complainants that the Central Bank of India was the custodian of the LIC Policies then and naturally they would pay the LIC premiums as per Banking Law and Practice. It is clearly mentioned in Para [v] of page 247 of Laws and Practices relating to banking, “‘the policy is a tangible security and is in the custody of the bank. The banker only has to ensure that regular payment of premiums is made.” The O. Ps. also did not inform the petitioners/policy holders about non-payment of the premium of both LIC Policies.
As per statement, there was a scope to restore the lapsed policies. For this reason, Revival Quotation was provided in the account statement dated 27/01/2021 by the KMDO-I LIC Branch code 422. Total revival amount was then [15/01/2021 to 10/02/2021] Rs. 1,47,020.00 approximately for the policy of Dr. Jay Prakash Gupta and Rs. 1,44,079.00 approximately for the policy of Dr. Anjana Devi Gupta. The revival scope of the LIC Policies was also not utilized by the Opposite Parties. Ergo, both LIC Policies had been lapsed and the LIC policy holders became unprotected/uncovered due to negligence of the O. Ps.
The Complainants repaid the house building loan to the O.Ps. through the cheque vide no- 699163 of Rs. 1,69,020.15 only dated 26/8/2019 of the State Bank of India, Baruipur branch. It is also admitted by the Sr. Brach Manager by the letter wrote on 25/09/2019 and it is also clearly mentioned in said letter,` the complainants have no dues with the Central Bank of India in relation to the House Building Loan.’
The O. Ps. also did not return some important original documents like Sanctioned Plan, original Searching Certificate, Porcha of the land and original document for estimate the property which was sanctioned by the Baruipur Municipality. The Complainants might suffer irreparable loss, injury for the negligence, deficiency of service and unfair trade practice occurred on behalf of the O.Ps.
In relation to point no. 3, “Are the complainants entitled to get relief /relieves as prayed for?”- it is relevant to say that the O.Ps. got the total amount of House building loan with accrued interest but they did not pay the premiums of the LIC Policies and did not return some important original documents.
Therefore, deficiency of service under Section 2(11) and unfair trade practice under Section 2[47] of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 have been occurred on behalf of the Opposite Parties.
Hence, the O. Ps. are jointly/severally liable to pay litigation cost Rs.15,000=00 [Rs. Fifteen thousand] only, compensation amount Rs. 1,00,000=00 [Rs. One lah] only.
The O. Ps. are also directed to return the original Sanctioned Plan and Porcha of the Land, original document for estimate the property which was sanctioned by the Baruipur Municipality and original Searching Certificate. If the document[sl are/ is lost and unable to return, penalty amount Rs. 50,000=00 only for losing the documents should be paid to the complainants. The O. Ps. are directed to publish as to the lost documents, if any, in Bengali, Hindi and English newspapers at their own cost .The O. Ps. are also directed to issue a Certificate of lost documents and lodge a FIR in the concerned police station.
The Opposite Parties are also directed either to restore both LIC Policies of Dr. Jay Prakash Gupta ad Dr. Anjana Devi Gupta by paying all dues premiums for violation of the provision under Para [v] of page 247 of Laws and Practices relating to banking, “‘the policy is a tangible security and is in the custody of the bank. The banker only has to ensure that regular payment of premiums is made.” Or, penalty of Rs 2,00,000=00 only altogether for both policies should be paid by the O.Ps. to the complainants for not paying the premiums of the LIC Policies under the custody and for being unprotected and uncovered the lives of the policy holders due to negligence and deficiency of service of the O.Ps.
All directions shall be complied with by the O.Ps. within 45 days from the date of issuing this order.
Ergo, the complaint case is succeeded.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is hereby allowed on contest against the Opposite Parties with a cost of Rs.15,000=00 (fifteen thousand) only.
The O. Ps. are liable to pay to the Complainants compensation amount Rs. 1, 00,000=00 [Rs. One lakh] only due to mental pain, agony, harassment suffered by the complainants.
The O. Ps. are also directed to return the original Sanctioned Plan and original Porcha of the Land, original document for estimate the property which was sanctioned by the Baruipur Municipality and original Searching Certificate. If the document[s] are/is lost and unable to return, penalty amount Rs. 50,000=00 [Rs. Fifty thousand] only for losing the documents should be paid to the complainants. The O. Ps. are directed to publish as to the lost documents, if any, in Bengali, Hindi and English newspapers at their own cost .The O. Ps. are also directed to issue a Certificate of lost documents to the complainants and lodge a FIR about the lost documents in the concerned police station positively.
The Opposite Parties are directed either to restore both LIC Policies of Dr. Jay Prakash Gupta and Dr. Anjana Devi Gupta by paying all dues premiums for violation of the provision under Para [v] of page 247 of Laws and Practices relating to banking, “the policy is a tangible security and is in the custody of the bank. The banker only has to ensure that regular payment of premiums is made.”
Or, penalty of Rs 2,00,000=00 [Rs. Two lakh] only altogether for not paying the premiums of two LIC Policies under the custody of the O.Ps. Bank and for being unprotected and uncovered the lives of the policy holders due to negligence and deficiency of service of the O.Ps.
All directions shall be complied by the O.Ps. within 45 days from the date of issuing this Order. Otherwise, the O. Ps. shall have to bear 9% simple interest upon the cost of litigation, penalty and compensation amount from the date of issuing this order to the date of realization.
In case of non- compliance, the Complainants are given liberty to file an Execution Case before the Ld. Commission after the expiry of 45 days from the date of issuing this Order if the orders are not complied with by the O.Ps. within the stipulated period of 45 days.
Let copies of the order be supplied to all the parties concerned in either speed post /registered post free of cost as per rule.
The final order be also available in www.confonet.nic.in .
Dictated and Corrected by me.
( Jagadish Chandra Barman)
(Member)
