IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.M.G.Hiremath<br /> B.Sc., L.L.B (Spl.)- President<br /> <br /> 2. G.V.Balasubramanya<br /> B.E., LL.M - Member<br /> <br /> CC 97/06 DATED 28-09-2006<br /> <br /> Complainant Smt.S.G.Meenakshi, <br /> W/o G.Subhash Rao, <br /> Central Hospital, Kalyanagirinagar, <br /> Mahadevapura Road, Mysore.<br /> (By S.V.Nagendra, Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> <br /> Opposite Parties 1. ICICI HFC Limited, Kalidasa Road, Mysore.<br /> Rep. by it’s Branch Manager<br /> 2. ICICI HFC Limited, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400 051.<br /> Rep. by it’s General Manager<br /> (By G.C., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 17-05-2006<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 13-06-2006<br /> Date of order : 28-09-2006<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 3 ½ months<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri.G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member,<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant had taken a housing loan from S.B.I Home Finance Ltd., Bangalore. As security to the loan along with the title deeds, she had assigned her life insurance policies bearing Nos.610777404 and 610777405 and her husband’s policy bearing No.61146642. The loan was later transferred to the first opposite party branch along with all the documents held by S.B.I. Home Finance Ltd.,. The 1st Opposite Party issued an acknowledgement for having received the documents.<br /> <br /> 2. Policy No.61146642 matured on 2.5.2005. Hence, she approached the first opposite party and requested him to release the policy. She says that the other policies were sufficient security to the loan and no injury would have been caused to the opposite party by releasing her husband’s policy. She wrote letters to both opposite parties. As they failed to respond, she filed this complaint. She has prayed that direction be issued to the opposite parties to return the matured policy belonging to her husband and also award her damages of Rs.25,000/-.<br /> <br /> 3. The first opposite party has filed version on behalf of himself and the second opposite party. He has specifically denied receiving any of the insurance policies from S.B.I Home Finance Ltd., at the time of taking over the loan of the complainant. He says he had informed the complainant that he did not have the insurance policies as their Bank accepted only documents of the property as security.<br /> <br /> 4. From the above contentions of the parties the following points arise for our consideration:<br /> <br /> a) Whether the complainant proves that the opposite parties have rendered deficient service by not returning the insurance policy of her husband?<br /> <br /> b) Whether the opposite parties prove that they are not in possession of the policy No.61146642?<br /> <br /> c) What order or relief?<br /> <br /> 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:<br /> <br /> Point 4(a): In the affirmative.<br /> <br /> Point 4(b): In the negative.<br /> <br /> Point 4(c): As per final Order<br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. Points 4(a) & 4(b):- The fact which both parties admit is that the complainant had borrowed a housing loan from the S.B.I Home Finance Ltd., which was later taken over by the first opposite party. The complainant is heavily relying upon the letter dated 30.7.2002 written by S.B.I Home Finance Ltd., addressed to the ICICI Home Finance, Bangalore in which it is stated that the documents pertaining to the complainant’s loan account are enclosed. These documents are sale deed dated 16.11.1966, agreement of sale dated 4.3.1997, certified copy of the dale deed, money receipts – 7 in number and the three LIC polices. There is an acknowledgement on the said letter by way of a signature of one Satish of ICICI Home Finance for having taken delivery of the documents. It is because of this letter, the complainant confidently says that the opposite parties have the insurance policies with them. The opposite parties have merely denied receiving the policies. It means they have received other documents pertaining to the property. They have no convincing answer to the question as to how they can deny the receipt of the policies when their official has acknowledged its receipt from S.B.I Home Finance Ltd., Added to this is another letter from the Chief Manager (Personal Loans), State Bank of India which states that there is no lien marked to their Bank against policy No.611466042.<br /> <br /> 7. In order to get to the root of the issue we have passed an interim order directing the complainant to take steps against the insurer to find out the status of policy No.611466042. The insurer, Life Insurance Corporation of India [LIC], has sent the details of the policy along with documents. It is seen that the policy was assigned to S.B.I Home Finance Ltd., on 19.8.1997 and was recorded in the books of the LIC on 19.11.1997. The policy matured on 20.3.2005. Since then the LIC has made attempts to contact S.B.I Home Finance Ltd., to ask them to submit the original policy for payment. But there is no reply from them. Hence the proceeds remain unpaid. LIC has also stated that they have attempted to contact the life assured [complainant’s husband] to arrange submission of the original policy from the custody of the assignee, S.B.I Home Finance Ltd., However, even this has not produced any result.<br /> <br /> 8. From the above it is clear that the policy remains assigned to S.B.I Home Finance Ltd., even today and one and half years after its maturity it remains unpaid. The question is who is to be blamed for this? Obviously, the opposite parties have to take the blame. It is not difficult to visualize what has happened. The S.B.I Home Finance Ltd., sent all the documents pertaining to the complainant’s loan to the opposite parties. It is strange that the opposite parties who have admitted receiving all the documents relating to the property from S.B.I Home Finance Ltd., say that only the policies were not there. As stated by the opposite parties themselves they were concerned with the documents of the property only and paid no attention to the three policies which were there with the other documents. The opposite parties did not want the policies as security. So they did not bother to have the prior assignment cancelled to get it assigned in their favour. At the other end, S.B.I Home Finance Ltd., having dispatched the loan documents to the opposite parties closed their file and forgot about the assignment of the policies. The complainant caught between these two has suffered. The negligence of the opposite parties lies in not returning the unwanted documents to the complainant. When they received the documents from S.B.I Home Finance Ltd., they should have returned the insurance policies to the complainant. It is now almost certain that the fate of the other two policies is no different from the fate of this policy. Hence, we answer point 4(a) in the affirmative and point 4(b) in the negative. <br /> <br /> 9. The policy matured more than one and half years back. Since then the maturity value of Rs.38,865/- has not earned any interest. The opposite parties have to make good the loss suffered by the complainant. They have to pay for the sheer negligence in handling the insurance policy of the complainant’s husband. The compensation amount should be reasonable enough to mitigate the loss of interest on the maturity proceeds. They are, also, liable to pay for the deficiency in service. With these observations we proceed to pass the following order.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> A. Complaint is allowed.<br /> <br /> B. The opposite parties shall provide all assistance to the complainant to obtain the maturity value of the policy, if necessary by writing to the LIC about the loss of the original policy. They shall, also, interact with S.B.I Home Finance, Ltd., for cancellation of the assignment. <br /> <br /> C. The opposite parties are directed to pay the complainant compensation of Rs.10,000/- within two months from the date of this order failing which the said amount will carry interest at 8% p.a thereafter until the date of payment.<br /> <br /> D. The opposite parties are directed to pay the complainant cost of Rs.1000/-.<br /> <br /> E. Give a copy of this order to both parties according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open court on this the day 28th September 2006)<br /> <br /> <br /> (M.G.Hiremath)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (G.V.Balasubramanya)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />