JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      This  judgment  shall  decide  the  above   said   two   revision petitions  which  arise out  from  two separate  complaints  and  the single  judgment,  rendered by  the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh.  The facts of the revision petition No.3483/2013 (CC No.10/07) are these.  Sh. Rais Ahmad (since deceased), now, represented  by  his  wife,  Ms.M. Shahnaz  Parveen, complainant No.1 and their two  sons  Nadeem Ahmad and Azim Ahmad, along with deceased  two  real brothers, Late  Sanjeed Ahmad  and  Hafiz Ahmad/complainants in second  complaint (CC No. 11/07 & RP No.3484/2013), formed  one  firm,  in the name  and  style  of  “Three  Brothers”.  They  obtained  Cash Credit  limit of Rs.2,25,000/-  from  Punjab National Bank, Branch Chandpur, District Bijnor, OP1, on 13.06.2000, after execution of the loan documents.  With regard  to  said   loan, Sh. Rais Ahmad   pledged  three  policies,  obtained  from  LIC  and  his brother pledged ten policies.

2.      OP1  sent  notice dated 17.08.2006   which was received by deceased  Sh.Rais Ahmad.  This notice  was  addressed to ‘M/s. Three Brothers’.  It was stated that M/s. Three Brothers had committed negligence towards re-payment of loan and were not depositing their installments, on time. As on 01.07.2006, the outstanding  balance in their account was Rs.82,899/- and further,  interest  was  increasing  continuously.  It was alleged that they  had violated the terms of  the  agreement.  Notice was given to  them to pay the amount, within 30 days, failing which,  legal  proceedings would be initiated.

3.      Unfortunately, Rais Ahmad passed away, on 04.09.2006. On 12.09.2006,  Sanjeed  Ahmad  and  Hafeej  Ahmed, for the purposes of  depositing  amount,  approached  the Senior  Manager, Sh. Mangal Giri Ashok, Chandpur  Branch,  OP2.  He informed  that  after issuance  of  notice,  they had  surrendered  all  the policies, obtained  payments and  the balance  amount  was deposited in their  bank  account.

4.      It is contended that in  case the  policy  subsisted,  the complainants  would have received the whole amount of  Rs.5,50,000/- of  the aforesaid  three  policies  because of  sudden death of  Sh.Rais Ahmad.  Consequently,  complainants suffered loss and filed complaint  (cc 10/07) before  District  Forum  claiming  a sum of  Rs.5,00,000/-, as compensation and a sum of  Rs.20,000/-, towards litigation expenses.  In the other  RP No. 3484 of 2013,  the complaint  (CC 11/07) was  filed  by  the remaining  two brothers,  Sanjeed Ahmad and Hafiz Ahmad.  In  this  case,  the complainants  had  pledged 10  insurance  policies   and  after  surrendering  the insurance policies,  an amount  of Rs.60,815/-  was  deposited  in excess in their accounts. They have  asked  for  compensation  amounting  to Rs.5,00,000/-  for  the  payment  prior  to  the  period  the payment is taken, Rs.1,00,000/-   for  mental  agony, litigation charges  in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and interest @ 18% p.a. on  the amounts  claimed  towards  compensation  and  mental agony.

5.      The  District  Forum, vide order dated 19.08.2010, directed as under :

“……. Therefore, the liability to pay whole compensation amount is of opposite parties.  In complaint No.10/07 complainant No.1 (because complainant No.2 & 3 are minor) compensation amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- along with 12 per cent interest and in the form of litigation expenses the amount of Rs.1,000/- and in complaint no.2 and complaint no.1/1 (because during the course of hearing of the complaint complainant no.1 died and in his place his wife two children are made as legal heirs, both of them are minor) for compensation the amount of Rs.50,000/- and for mental agony the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with 12 per cent interest and in the form of litigation expenses is entitled to the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.

ORDER

Opposite parties are hereby directed that they in complaint No.10/07 to complainant No.1, should pay Rs.5,00,000/-  along  with 12% interest (from the date of filing of the suit till the date of actual payment) and in the form of litigation expenses,  the amount  of   Rs.1,00,000/-  and to complainant  No.2 of  complaint No.11/07, and for compensation of complaint No.1/1, Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony Rs.1,00,000/- along with 12% (from the date of filing of the suit till the date of actual payment) and in the form of litigation expenses  the  amount of Rs.10,000/- is to be paid within 30 days”.

6.      The above said  order  is  a wee bit  confusing,  if  it  is  read  as a  whole.   Aggrieved  by  that  order, two appeals  were filed before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide its order dated  23.07.2013, dismissed  the appeals.

7.      We  have heard  the counsel for  the  parties.  Counsel for  the Petitioner,  Bank,  vehemently argued that  the documents appearing from pages 79 to 88 of the paper-book, clearly go to show that  the complainants had  already surrendered the LIC policies.  They  had affixed  their  signatures  on  the  surrender Deed, with open eyes and at the time  when  they  took the loan, the originals bear their signatures.  The Clerk  of LIC  who was called  from LIC produced documents  showing  that  the complainants had affixed their signatures. The counsel for the  petitioner also  submitted  that, out of 10   insurance  policies,  seven  had lapsed.  The complainants  did not  pay  the further  premiums.  Under   these  circumstances,  the  Bank was well  within  its right  to get  those  policies  surrendered.

8.      We  find force  in her arguments,  in a measure.  The notice dated  17.08.2006,  is crucial/main pillar, the foundation on which the entire case rests.  It  surpasses the  other  relevant  facts.  The petitioner - Bank  has committed an egregious mistake in  not  waiting for  one  full month.  The complainants had no chance to pay the amount  within  one month.  The  policies  were already  surrendered.   For all these reasons,  this  piece of  evidence  gets preponderance over all the submissions  made  by  the counsel for the OP.  This also,  clearly  goes  to show  the negligence,  inaction and passivity on the part of the petitioner-Bank. The attitude of the authorities adds a shocking dimension  to the situation.  They are contesting this case without realizing that they had committed a flagrant mistake.  The higher authorities  are prone to turn a Nelson’s eye to indiscipline in the branches rather taking the bull by horns.  The petitioner is spending/wasting  the so-called public money on this frivolous case but did not take any action against those who could not wait for a month of notice. They are liable to pay compensation to the complainants. The District  Forum  and State  Commission have granted   the  value  of  the  policies  in  favour  of  the  complainants which  were  allegedly  surrendered.  The  District  Forum was pleased  to note :-

“If the payment of aforesaid policies would not have  been  received, then,  complainants would have received the whole amount of around  Rs.5,50,000/-  of  the aforesaid policies because Policy No. 250409571 was amounting to Rs.1,20,222/- which was of 10.10.1990 policy No.251588505  amounting of Rs.1,50,000/- was of 28.12.1997 at policy No.251588504 was amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- which was of 28.12.1997,  payment of  the same was received to the  complainants along  with all the benefits but opposite parties while  adopting unfair trade practice have obtained the payment while surrendering the policies prior to the time period  of  payment  mentioned in  notice  which clearly  shows the unfair trade practice of opposite parties. The amount of total of Rs.56,426/- is found to be included in the aforesaid three policies by which it is clear  that  the complainants suffered the loss  of  around  Five  Lac rupees and responsibility  of the payment of the same with the opposite parties”.

9.      However,  it is made clear  that  we modify the orders  passed by both  the fora.   The complainants  in RP No.3483 of 2013 (Complaint Case No.10/07) would get total compensation in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/-  only,  with interest  @ 9% p.a.,  instead of 12% p.a., for  harassment  and  mental agony.  Costs of  the case, the total amount payable to the complainants would be Rs.1,00,000/-.  Other benefits are hereby deleted in the said case.

10.    In  Case No.3484 of 2013 (CC No.11/07), also, the  orders  passed  by  the fora below are  modified  and  the complainants  will  get  compensation  in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only,  with  interest @ 9% p.a,  from  the date of  filing of  the complaint,  till  the date of actual payment.

The  revision  petitions  stand  partly  allowed.