Date of Filing      : 23.12.2022

                                                                                                                                       Date of Disposal: 18.07.2023

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, MA.,ML, Ph.D (Law)                          .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, B.Sc., BL.,                                                              .....MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.,ICWA(Inter)., BL.,                                            ....MEMBER-II

CC. No.10/2023

THIS TUESDAY, THE 18^th DAY OF JULY 2023

Mr.R.Pandian,

 S/o.CT.Ramanathan,

No.11/1, Netaji Cross Street,

Dhasaratha Nagar,

Vembakkam,

Ponneri 601 204.                                                                                       ……Complainant.

                                                                                  //Vs//

Customer Relation Manager (CRM),

LIC, Mount Road, Chennai 600 002.                                                .......Opposite party.

Counsel for the complainant                                       :   Party in Person.

Counsel for the opposite party                                   :   Mr.S.Sushil Kumar, Advocate.

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 10.07.2023 in the presence of complainant who appeared in person and Mr.S.Sushil Kumar, counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR, MEMBER-I

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party along with a prayer to direct on the opposite party to waive the interest amount of Rs.1,60,000/- towards the compensation for the mental agony, strain inconvenience, monetary loss caused to the complainant.

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

That the complainant had availed a loan amount of Rs.44,000/- through policy No.742599758 during 2013 and the said loan has been repaid with interest within three months through agent of the opposite party. The complainant availed Rs.2700/- under policy No.742599758 during 1995.  However, the agent informed that it is a bonus amount.

The opposite party informed that the complainant has to pay Rs.30,326/- interest for a principal amount of Rs.2700/- and Rs.63,595/- interest for a principal amount of Rs.44,000/-.  The complainant regularly remitted the policy premiums till 2018 and from 2018 he had paid the premiums under Salary Saving Scheme.  The interest levied by opposite party is found to be abnormal and no intimation was given by the opposite party.

The complainant has been paid Rs.509/- under the policy No.742599758 and Rs.116/- for the policy No.740252476 per month continuously till now.  The opposite party did not intimate properly about the outstanding of the loans.  The complainant approached Ombudsman and Legal Services Authority, but all went in vain.  Locking period of the policy is minimum three years. The complainant was cheated by the opposite party’s agent.  The opposite party utilized the ignorance of the complainant and cheated him.  Hence the complaint.

The crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-

The opposite party disputed the allegations in the complaint interalia contending that the complainant is not regular in repayment of the loans.  The opposite party also called upon the complainant to produce the receipts for payments but the complainant failed to do so. The complainant accepted the terms of the loan and received the payments from opposite party and now stopped from pleading contra. Policy premium is different from loan repayment against policy.  The complainant had not filed any receipts for payment.  The petitions filed before Ombudsman and Legal Service Authorities was closed due to fault on the side of the complainant.  The opposite party is not running a Bank or financial institution to waive interest.  It is bounden duty to repay the loan amount failing which it would be deducted from the claim amount and the remaining amount will be credited.  Having accepted the terms and conditions the complainant failed to pay the premium and now he cannot raise those issues which were barred by limitation.  There is no cause of action for this complaint. Moreover the opposite party is governed by IRDA.  The opposite party’s agent never cheated the complainant and he is not a party to the proceedings.  The complainant approached this Commission only to waive the interest. The policy in which complainant availed loan got matured during 2023 and gross payable to the complainant is Rs.1,99,900/- and for the nonpayment of due amount towards loan is Rs.1,15,832/-.  After deduction net payable to the complainant is Rs.84,068/-.  Complainant’s consent for absolute assignment of policy in favour of LIC of India and that the interest on the loan shall be paid compounding half yearly to the corporation, the first payment of interest to be made on the date of next policy anniversary or on the date six months before the next policy anniversary which ever immediately follows the date on which the loan is made. In the event of failure of repayment the interest on due date, the policy shall be held without the necessity of any notice being given, to be forfeited to the corporation and the corporation shall be entitled to apply surrender value allowable in respect of the policy in terms of regulation and conditions in payment of loan, policy in terms of regulation and conditions in payment of loan, interest and expenses and balance if any of such surrender value is payable to the party entitled thereto.

This opposite party has sent a letter to the complainant dated 10.08.2022 intimating the amount of loan interest to be remitted for the policy No.740252576 and 742599758 as on date, which comes to Rs.30,560/-(from 14.10.1995 to 10.08.2022) and Rs.64,430/- (From 14.05.2013 to 10.08.2022 for 9 years) respectively.  The loan interest will be charged at the rate noted as compound interest, until the interest due is paid, up to date.  The opposite party further state that wavier or write off loan interest cannot be accepted as per the policy terms and conditions.  Thus the opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 was submitted.  On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents marked as Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 was submitted.

Points for consideration:-

1. Whether the complaint allegation as to deficiency in service against the opposite party has been successfully proved by complainant?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

It is the case of the complainant that he had availed loan from the opposite party based on the policy No.742599758.  He had paid the loan amount with interest to the agent of the opposite party.  The agent of the opposite party cheated the complainant. Now the opposite party asked the complainant to pay Rs.30,326/- towards the principal amount of Rs.2700/- and Rs.63595/- towards the principal amount of Rs.44,000/-.  The interest rate levied by the opposite party found to be abnormal and therefore the complainant requested the opposite party to waive the interest and hence the complaint.

To prove the case, the complainant deposed proof affidavit with 12 documents which were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A12.  Ex.A1 is the copy of policy document No.742599758 with status report of this policy, Ex.A2 is the copy of Lapsed Policy document, Ex.A3 is the proof for sign misused in consent form of the policy, Ex.A4 is the copy of loan interest, Ex.A5 is the copy of loan application for the policy No.742599758, Ex.A6 is the copy of Reassignment, Ex.A7 is the copy of pay slip of the complainant, Ex.A8 is the copy of reply letter issued by the opposite party, Ex.A9 is the copy of notice issued by Legal Services Authority, Chennai to the complainant, Ex.A10 is the copy of loan repayment quotation slip, Ex.A11 is the copy of agent status report and Ex.A12 is the copy of policy loan closure for the policy No.742599758.

Per contra, the opposite party contended that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  The complainant had not repaid the loan amount properly and there is an outstanding dues payable by the complainant.  The complainant had not submitted the necessary receipt for payments.  It is bounden duty of the complainant to repay the loan amount failing which loan amount would be deducted from the claim amount and remaining amount will be credited and the opposite party has no option to waive the loan amount.  It is the complainant who had not repaid the loan amount and leveled false and baseless allegations against the opposite party without any documentary proof.  The opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint.

To refute the claim of the complainant, the opposite party deposed proof affidavit with 2 documents which were marked as Ex.B1 & Ex.B2.  Ex.B1 is the copy of loan application signed by the complainant and Ex.B2 is the letter given by LIC with details of interest amount and due date to pay the interest.

It is not disputed that the complainant had availed loan based on the policy No.742599758.  The only question has to be decided whether the complainant had repaid the loan amount or not.  On careful perusal of the pleadings and documents filed by both the parties, the complainant stated that he had repaid the loan through the agent of the opposite party.  However, the complainant had not chosen to file any documents in support of his contentions.  Mere allegations will not be acceptable in the absence of any document evidence.

The complainant had not filed a single document to show that he had repaid the loan amount.  The exhibit marked by the complainant vide Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 do not disclose loan repayment made by the complainant.  Moreover, the complainant neither disclosed the name of the agent who cheated him nor impleaded him as party to the proceedings.

The allegation put forth by the complainant is vague without any documentary evidence.  The complainant prayed this Commission to waive the interest in the loan amount.  If the complainant paid the loan amount, there is no such necessity would have arisen to waive off the interest.  Hence the complainant had not approached this Commission with clean hands.

We have heard the arguments of both sides and carefully perused the documents filed by both the parties.  We have come to the conclusion that the opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service.  This point is answered accordingly.

Point No.2:-

Since the opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any reliefs as prayed by him and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.  Accordingly the complaint is dismissed. This point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Dictated by the Member-I to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 18^th day of July 2023.

   Sd/-                                                    Sd/-                                                               Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                  MEMBER-I                                               PRESIDENT

List of document filed by the complainant:-

      List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

   Sd/-                                                           Sd/-                                                         Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                         MEMBER-I                                         PRESIDENT