Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 29.02.2016
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to pay the claim amount to the complainant.
- Brief facts of the case as asserted by the complainant is as follows:-
This complaint has been filed by the complainant stating therein that he has taken the policy of L.I.C. namely Jeevan Asha Yojna being T.T. No. 129/95 dated 14.01.1998 for Rs. 1,00,000/- ( Rs. One Lack only ) and the same policy was numbered as 511308185. As per terms of the policy, the complainant was entitled to receive 12% survival benefit after each 3 years. The grievance of the complainant is that he has not received survival benefit on 14.01.2007 despite filing several application and legal notice to the opposite party no. 1 and the other grievance of the complainant is that he has approached the L.I.C. authorities for redressal of his grievance since 14 months and policy is in the bank who is realizing 12½% interest from him.
It has been further asserted that his surrender value is being minimized which was Rs. 174.76/- on 10.02.2004 which has come down as Rs. 139.50/- on 24.11.2005. The other grievance of the complainant is that when he approached the L.I.C. authorities for his benefit under the scheme then he was informed that his cheque has been sent to the bank and bank authorities returned his cheque despite his saving account on the ground that there is less money in his saving account. It has been also asserted that bank authorities have illegally adjusted his amount of L.I.C.
It has been also asserted that bank authorities have not informed that loan account has become N.P.A. ( Non Performing Account ).
A rejoinder cum written statement has been filed on behalf of the L.I.C. ( Opposite party no. 1 ). Opposite party no. 1 in aforesaid written statement has stated that opposite party no. 1 is not at fault.
It has been also asserted that opposite party no. 1 issued cheque bearing cheque no. 513281 dated 28.08.2007 to P.N.B., Budha Colony for survival benefit due and it is duty of bank authority to encash the amount.
It has been further asserted in para – 7 of written statement that opposite party no. 1 issued a fresh cheque bearing no. 067961 dated 30.01.2010 for Rs. 2,097/- and cheque no. 067962 dated 30.01.2010 for Rs. 390/- to P.N.B. which has been received by P.N.B. i.e. opposite party no. 2 on 03.02.2010. The aforesaid amount includes Rs. 2,000/- for S.B. due on 2007 for Rs. 387/- is shown as panel interest.
It has been further asserted that this case has been filed after enormous delay and opposite party no. 1 is not at fault in any manner as opposite party no. 1 had performed his duty as per law.
On behalf of opposite party no. 2 a written statement has been filed. In Para – 7 of aforesaid written statement it has been asserted that the complainant took loan of Rs. 50,000/- from P.N.B., Budha Colony Branch, Patna for purpose of his business of betel and zarda and all the articles of shop were burnt due to fire on 28/29.12.2001 in the night. The insurance claim of the complainant has been rejected by New India Insurance Company Ltd.
Thereafter the complainant has filed a complaint case before the District Consumer Forum, Patna for redressal of his grievance in year 2003 challenging the aforesaid order of rejection by New India Insurance Company Ltd. The District Consumer Forum, Patna has allowed the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 77,331/-
It has been further asserted in Para – 9 of written statement of opposite party no. 2 that the complainant has approached the manager of P.N.B., Budha Colony, Patna and requested him to advance a loan amount of Rs. 50,000/-. The aforesaid loan was sanctioned to the complainant on 16.12.2005 but as the complainant did not pay the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the bank, then the aforesaid account has been classified under N.P.A. ( Non Performing Account ) on 30.04.2007.
In Para – 10 and 11 of the written statement of opposite party no. 2 it has been asserted that the claim amount of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 77,331/- was paid by New India Insurance Company Ltd. on 09.08.2007 and a cheque was issued in favour of the bank belonging to Sri Mukesh Kumar ( complainant ). The aforesaid amount has been credited in his account which has been classified as N.P.A. since 30.04.2007 with standing balance of Rs. 49,264/- and by adjusting the above loan amount of Rs. 32,278/- the rest amount of Rs. 45,060/- was credited in his saving account.
It is needless to say that aforesaid facts asserted by the opposite party no. 1 and 2 have not been controverted by the complainant by filing rejoinder or appropriate petition with required evidence etc.
We have deliberately mentioned the facts asserted by both the parties in foregoing paragraphs.
The aforesaid facts explicitly clear real circumstances of this case.
It goes without saying that the complainant has taken loan of Rs. 50,000/- against his shop which appears to have been hypothecated to bank.
It further transpires that the complainant has not paid the aforesaid amount of loan as per terms and condition and hence the cheque of amount of Rs. 77,331/- issued by opposite party no. 1 in favour of the complainant was sent to the bank by opposite party no. 1 and opposite party no. 2 as per mandate of law has adjusted the amount against the due loan which has become N.P.A. earlier and credited the rest amount in the saving account of the complainant.
It further transpires from the written statement of the opposite party no. 1 that vide annexure – 1 series the S.B. due amount has been paid.
In our opinion both opposite party no. 1 and 2 have performed their duty and nothing remains to be decided in view of the aforesaid facts asserted by the opposite parties.
In our opinion the complainant has no case and as such this complaint petition stands dismissed.
Member President
