Haryana

Ambala

CC/58/2017

Anantbir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Prudential Life Inss Co. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

N.K. Sharma

15 Apr 2019

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMBALA

 

 

                                                                      Complaint case no.        :  58 of 2017

                                                          Date of Institution         :  22.02.2017

                                                          Date of decision    :  15.04.2019

 

 

Anantbir Singh, aged about 67 years, son of Late Brig. Jasbir Singh, 125 Staff Road, Ambala Cantt.

 

……. Complainant.

 

 

1.       ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, through its Branch Manager, Old Sessions Court Road, Opp. Jain Nagar, Ambala City.

2.       ICICI Bank Pvt. Limited, through Branch Manager, Ambala City.

 

 ….…. Opposite Parties.

 

 

Before:        Ms. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Ms. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

                  

                            

Present:       Sh. S.S.Sikand, Advocate, counsel for complainant.

OP No.1 already ex parte  v.o.d. 03.01.2019.

Sh. Anil Kaushik, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

 

Order:         Smt, Neena Sandhu, President

Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties(hereinafter referred to as ‘Ops’) praying for issuance of  following directions to them:-

1. The OP No.1  be directed to disclose  the maturity value of each  policy  on the date of maturity.
2. The OP No.2  be directed  to disclose  the loan amount due on the date of maturity.
3. The OP be entitled to pay the  balance amount after deducting  the loan amount on date of maturity  alongwith interest  @24% per annum  
4. To pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental  agony and physical harassment suffered by  him.
5. To pay claim upto Rs. 20 lacs only in all respect.

.

•  

any other relief whichthis Hon’ble Forum may deemfit.

 

In nutshell, brief facts of the present complaint are that  on the allurement of the representatives of the OP No.1 the complainant  purchased  following policies:

Policy No.	Date	Amount	Date of Maturity
01836905	17.8.2005	12 lacs	16.08.2008
01961434	27.9.2005	4 lacs	26.09.2010

The complainant was told that the complainant  is required  to pay one time premium which has been paid by the complainant through cheque no.809991 dated 17.08.2005 and cheque no. 003584 dated 27.09.2005 in lieu of payments respectively  and both the cheques have got encashed by the OP No.1. The complainant was given financial assistance by the OP No.2 at the instance of OP No.1. In lieu of such financial assistance the OP No.1 got signatures  on some blank  forms. The complainant had taken one loan under current account no.023305000600 and another  loan  for the purchase  of vehicle  vide LAN No.LAAMB00005367810. The instalments of the loans would be paid from the interest on the amounts  deposited  by the complainant. However, the instalments of the loan were not paid by the OP No.1 and the complainant had to pay  the same from his pocket. The complainant was not even supplied the copies of the policies and the statements of accounts regularly and the complainant was totally kept in dark regarding the account. Whenever the complainant went to OP No.1, it was stated that he will get lump-sum amount on the date of the maturity but no amount was paid to the complainant at any time. The complainant has served legal notice upon the Ops on 24.05.2010 but OP No.1 did not reply the same. However, the Ops repudiated his claim vide letter dated 30.10.2010. Ultimately, complainant filed CC No.385 of 2010 before this Hon’ble Forum against OP No.1. During the pendency of the  said  case when the case was at the argument stage, OP No.1 released  to the OP No.2, the following amounts:-

1. Cheque no.841956 dated 28.10.2015 for Rs.18,98,680.39/-
2. Cheque  no. 841957 dated 28.10.2015 for Rs.7,37,273.68

 

Though, from the very beginning, the stand of the Ops was that the complainant is not entitled for any amount because he had not paid the other instalments of the premium of the policies and as such the amount paid by the complainant had been forfeited. But to the utter surprise of the complainant that the OP No.1 released the amount due against the foresaid policies to OP No.2, that to without informing the Hon’ble Forum and a petty amount of Rs. 81,000/- was also deposited in the account of the complainant. Thereafter, the OP No.1 started taking technical objection that ICICI Bank is a necessary party but the complainant has not impleaded it as an opposite party in the arrays of opposite parties, as such, the complainant is not entitled to get any claim, inspite of  the fact that this objection was not taken in the written version filed by the insurance company.  In order to avoid any risk complainant moved an application dated 28.12.2016 for withdrawal of the complaint and the same was allowed by this Hon’ble Forum vide order dated 28.12.2016, with the liberty  to file a fresh complaint on the same cause of action within 60 days of the receipt  of copy of order. The order dated 28.12.2016 has been received by the complainant on 06.01.2017 and thereafter, he filed the present complaint. Due to this act of the Ops, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony and physical harassment and financial loss on account of deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.

2.                 Upon notice OP No.1, appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous; not come with clean hands. On merits, it is stated that the Ops received two proposal/ application  forms duly filled in and signed  by Sh. Anant Bir Singh(herein after  referred to as “Life Assured”) seeking  insurance  on his life  under the “Premier  Life Plan”) and issued  the policy bearing no.08136905 and 01961434. The policy certificate, alongwith the policy documents in original was dispatched to the complainant on 22.08.2005 through  blue dart vide Airway Bill number 10988044432 and the same  was duly received by him on 23.08.2005. The second policy documents in original were dispatched to the complainant on 30.09.2005 through blue dart. The complainant retained the policy documents and did not raise any objection towards the policies. It is further stated that   the complainant had not approached the Ops during the free look period with any of his grievance regarding the policy or its terms and conditions. It is also stated that the complainant requested  to assign  the policies  to ICICI Bank, for loan against securities which was  received by OP company on December 06, 2005 and December 23, 2005 and the said  request  was complied with and was replied vide letter dated December,8 2005 and December 26, 2005 under Section 38 of the Insurance Act, 1938. As per the Insurance Act once the assignment of the policy is done, all benefits  under the policy  are given to the assignee. After that on the request of the complainant, the OP has assigned the policies to the bank. The OP company on the foreclosure of the policies paid the foreclosure amount to the bank as per assignment law to the bank. Accordingly an amount of Rs.18,98,680.39 was paid for policy no.01836905 and an amount of Rs. 7,37,273.68 was paid for policy no.01961434. The present complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and deserves dismissal.

Upon notice OP No.2, appeared through counsel and filed written version, raising preliminary objections qua complaint is not maintainable being false and frivolous; hopelessly time bar; concealed the true and material facts: no locus standi; no cause of action. On merits, it is stated that the complainant  was having two single  premium  insurance policies no.01836905 & 01961434 for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- & Rs. 4,00,000/- respectively issued by the OP No.1 and both the policies were to maturity in the year 2048. The complainant had obtained the loan/credit limit against securities under the current account no.023305000600, from the ICICI Bank Ltd., by pledging the above said insurance policies as security. The said loan was utilized by the complainant by way of withdrawals as detailed in the statement of account for the period 25.11.05 to 24.01.2006. After taking loan against the aforesaid insurance policies, he had not  paid even a single  penny  towards the loan liability. The ICICI Bank had issued several letters as reminder vide which the complainant was requested to pay the due interest. On 02.11.2015 to recover the outstanding loan of Rs.5,14,648 and Rs. 17,68,108/-  as overdue interest,  the ICICI Bank Ltd  got the policies  terminated from the OP No.1,  which  were taken as  securities against the said loan.  After  termination of policy no.01836905 a sum of Rs.18,98,680.39 and after termination of policy no.01961434 a sum of Rs. 7,37,273.68 were credited  in the bank account of the complainant and deducted a sum of Rs.22,82,756.64 as repayment of the aforesaid  loan (which includes Rs.5,14,648 as loan outstanding and Rs.17,68,108/- as overdue  interest)and rest of amount of Rs.3,53,197.43 were remained as credit  balance in the account of complainant. The complainant had also obtained Auto loan for purchase of vehicle from the ICICI Bank Ltd, a sum of Rs.2,71,288/-were due as outstanding. The OP No.2 had deducted the said amount from the account of the complainant by debiting his account on 04.11.2015. Remaining amount of Rs. 81,909/-was credited into the account of complainant on the same day i.e.  04.11.2015. All other averments made in the complaint were denied and prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with special cost.

3.                 To prove his version complainant tendered affidavit, Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents, Annexure C-1 to C-8 and closed the evidence. On the other hand, Counsel for OP No.1 tendered documents Annexure R-G to R-I and closed the evidence. Learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit as Annexure RW1/A alongwith Annexure R-A to R-D, D1 to D31, E & F and closed the evidence.  

4.                From the perusal of the zimni orders, it is revealed that on 03.01.2019 none appeared on behalf of OP No.1, accordingly, it  was proceeded against ex-parte  by this Forum vide its order dated 03.01.2019.

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.

6.                 The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the complainant on 17.08.2005 purchased an insurance policy bearing no. 01836905 from the OP no.1 for sum assured of Rs.12 lacs having maturity date 16.08.2008. On 27.09.2008 he also purchased another policy bearing no.01916434 from the OP no.1 for sum assured of Rs. 4 lacs having maturity date 26.10.2010. On the allurement of the representative of the insurance company i.e. OP No.1, complainant availed financial assistance from the bank i.e. OP No.2, by pledging  the said policies. He took one loan having account no-0233050006000 and another auto loan having account no.LAAMB00005367810, for purchase of vehicle. Loan instalments were to be paid by the OP No.1, from the interest accrued on the amount deposited by the complainant with it. The loan instalments were not paid by the OP No.1 and it kept the complainant in dark and on the asking of the OP No.2, during the pendency of the earlier complaint case no.-385/2010 filed by the complainant, had released the amount of Rs.18,98,680.39 and Rs.7,37,273.68 vide cheques dated 28.10.2015 without informing him. The OP no.1 should have paid the balance amount to the complainant after paying the loan amount to the OP No.1, on the date of the maturity of the said policies but it did not do so. The said act of the Ops amounts to deficiency in service, therefore, directions may be issued to them as sought for by the complainant in the prayer clause of the complaint.

The learned counsel for the OP No.2 argued that the complainant has wrongly alleged, the date of maturity of policy No. 01836905 as on 16.08.2008 and policy no.01961434 as on 26.09.2010, whereas the said policies were to mature in the year 2048. Since the complainant had taken the loan by pledging both the policies in question as co lateral security, therefore, it was his liability to pay the loan instalment. Vide letter dated 30.01.2017, Annexure R-6, the insurance company, duly informed the complainant that the instalment of loan taken by him cannot be adjusted from the value of the units held by him under the said policies and he himself has to pay the loan instalment. He further argued that when the complainant did not pay the loan instalments, despite repeated reminder then OP No.2, left with no other alternative except to get both the policies terminated from the insurance company, which were taken as securities against the said loan. After termination of the policy no.01836905 & policy no.01961434 a sum of Rs.18,98,680.39  & Rs.7,37,273.68 was paid by the insurance company to the bank and an amount of Rs. 81,000/- was deposited in the account of the complainant.  As such there is no deficiency in service on its part. The complaint filed by the complainant is devoid of merits and same may be dismissed with cost.  

It may be stated here that that the complainant has not placed on record any cogent evidence to prove that the date of maturity of the policy no.01836905 was 16.08.2008 and of the policy no.01961434 was 26.09.2010. On the perusal of the policy documents Annexure C-1 & C-3, it is revealed that there is no column for the date of maturity. In term no. 8, ‘maturity benefits’ of the policy documents Annexure C-2. It is mentioned that “the policy being open ended has no fixed maturity date and in the event that the Life Assured survival anniversary on which the Life Assured is 75 age nearer birthday, the only benefits payable under the policy the value of units at the time of withdrawal of the units as computed in manner provided in clause no.8 of the policy”.  In this situation, the contention of the complainant that the policies in question got matured on 16.08.2008 and 26.09.2010 respectively is not tenable. Even the contention of the complainant that the insurance company i.e. OP No.1, was to repay the loan amount to OP No.2 is also not sustainable because from the perusal of letter dated 30.01.2007 annexed alongwith Annexure C-8, tendered by the OP No.1 in earlier  complaint case no.385/2010, it is evident that the insurance company informed the complainant that overdraft amounting to Rs.71,000/- availed by the complainant against the premium life policies no. 01836905 and 01961434 cannot be adjusted from the value of the units held by him under the said policies. No other documents have been placed on record by the complainant to prove that the insurance company was to pay the loan instalments to the OP No.2 for the loan taken by him. As such we are of the opinion that it was the liability of the complainant to pay the loan amount to the OP No.2. However, the complainant neither paid the due loan instalments himself nor made any request to the OP no.1 for pre-mature encashment of the aforesaid policies which he pledged with the OP No.2 as security. In the case of Syndicate Bank Vs. Vijay Bank, AIR 1992, SC 1066, principle of law already been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the bank has a general lien on all forms of securities or negotiable instruments. It is also significant to adhere that in case any person fails to make payment of the loan amount inspite of many opportunities having been given to the loanee, the concerned bank is entitled to recover the said amount by disposing of the mortgaged/pledged property. Due to non payment of the loan instalments by the complainant, the OP No.2 got pre-mature encashment of the said policies and after adjusting the due loan amount had credited the remaining amount into the account of the complainant.  Be that as it may we do not find any merit in the present complaint, consequently, we dismiss the same without any order as to cost. Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on : 15.04.2019

 

 

 

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)              (Ruby Sharma)     (Neena Sandhu)

                      Member                     Member                       President