: J U D G M E N T :
This is a case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by Tapashi Debnath against OP No. 1, Branch Manager, LICI, Krishnagar Branch II, OP No. 2, Divisional Manager, LICI, Kolkata Suburban Divisional Office, Salt Lake City and OP No. 3, one Mrinal Kanti Bhowmik, agent of LICI.
The facts of the case to put in a nutshell, are as below:-
The complainant, Tapashi Debnath purchased a LIC Policy being No. 422300838 in the year 2000 which would be matured in 2015. On 04.04.13 the complainant was assaulted by her husband Madan Debnath and his relatives so she had to take shelter at her father’s house and thereafter a case was lodged which is pending before the ld. court at Ranaghat. The complainant went to the office of the OP 1 several times for information about her LIC policy but the officials informed her orally that the said policy was surrendered and the same surrendered value was withdrawn. As the complainant never surrendered the policy or wrote any application to the LICI authority, so she lodged a complaint before the Assistant Director, CA&FBP, Nadia Region but in vain. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this instant case praying for entire amount of the policy along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and cost of the suit.
OP No. 1, Branch Manager, LICI, Krishnagar contested this case by filing a written version on 25.06.14 denied all the allegations made in the complaint. The sum and substance of the written version is stated below:-
The case is not maintainable and the complainant has no cause of action to file this case. The present complaint is misconceived, malafide and motivated. The case is bad for defect of parties. The case is barred by special law of limitation. The complainant purchased a policy being No. 422300838 for sum assured of Rs. 30,000/- and the date of maturity of the said policy was on 12.10.15. The nominee of the said policy was Madan Debnath. On 08.10.15 the complainant applied for a loan and the loan was sanctioned on 18.10.15 for the amount of Rs. 7,500/- in the A/C of the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant surrendered the policy on 24.06.13. After making all the formalities and deducting the loan amount Rs. 21,064/- was credited to the A/C of the complainant. So the OP No. 1 has no liability and no deficiency in service.
OP No. 3 has also contested this case by filing a written version denying all the allegations. In his written version he has admitted that the policy was made by him but thereafter regarding loan he has no knowledge so he has prayed for dismissal of the case against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
- Point No. 1: Is the complainant a consumer?
- Point No. 2: Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
- Point No. 3: What relief the complainant is entitled to get?
REASOND DECISIONS
For the purpose of brevity and convenience all the points are taken up together for discussion.
It is the case of the complainant that the complainant purchased the policy which was to be matured in October, 2015 but the policy was surrendered without her permission.
We have meticulously gone through the deposition and the interrogatories in the background of the pleadings of the parties. The main defence of the opposite party is that the complainant is not entitled to get any money from either of the OPs because it was a joint policy of the complainant and her husband. The evidence of the bank officer, Maajid Irfaan dtd. 16.12.14 goes to show that money claimed by the claimant had already been encashed in the account of Madan Debnath and Tapashi Debnath, complainant and her husband
It is also admitted position that keeping the policy as collateral security loan granted and was adjusted thereafter and the rest amount was paid in the joint account of Tapashi Debnath and Madan Debnath. The affidavit of the OPW 1, Branch Manager, LICI is clear on the point. The answers on behalf of the LICI are quite comprehensible and believable. It was filed on 16th June.
Reply of interrogatories given by OP goes to show that joint account between the husband and wife that means Tapashi Debnath and Madan Debnath and encashment of the rest amount after adjustment is admitted position. Hence, we are inclined to hold that the petitioner’s case is very weak. She could not establish her case. Hence, all the points are disposed of with the observation that the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief although she was a consumer of the OPs and LICI has no fault or deficiency in any mannter.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2013/122 be and the same is dismissed on contest. No cost.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
