By Sri. Gururaj Member:- This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act by the complainant- Sri. Vikram Nair Advocate against Respondent- Divisional Manager, LIC of India. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant had taken two policies bearing Nos. (1) 660070149 & 075682344 from the Respondent Corporation. By keeping these two policy bonds as a security he availed a loan of Rs. 25,240/- on the first policy and Rs. 8180/- on the second policy on 28-06-02. The complainant has repaid the entire loan amount along with interest amounting to Rs. 52,880/- on 14-07-08 and requested the concerned officials of Respondent to return the two policy bonds kept as security. The officials of the Respondent Corporation told the complainant to come on 17-07-08 and collect the policy bonds. Accordingly the complainant visited the Respondent Corporation on 17-07-08 at 12-30 pm, but the officials of Respondent Corporation made this complainant to run from pillars to post and asked him once again to come at 3-00 pm. Again at 3-00 pm when this complainant went to the office of Respondent Corporation the officials did not return the policy bonds. All the plea of this complainant to get back the policy bonds fell on deaf ears. The sadistic attitude & behaviour of the staff of the Respondent would bring no charm to them nor to the corporation in which they are serving. Then this complainant approached the Branch Manager of the Respondent at 4-00 pm and requested to look into the matter, who in-turn assured the complainant that the policy bond will be sent by Registered Post. But in-spite of said assurance, for reasons best known the Respondent has not sent the original policy bonds. With-holding of the policy bonds by the Respondent without any reason or rhyme has caused humiliation, harassment, mental agony and monetary loss to this complainant and the same has been resulted in deficiency in service on the part of the Respondent. Hence Respondent is liable to pay sum of Rs. 25,000/- as damages to this complainant. 2. The Respondent appeared through his counsel and has filed his written version: The Respondent Insurance Company in its written version has contended hat the Respondent was waiting for the confirmation for realization of cheque presented for clearance for repayment of loan. It is the practice of this Respondent to nullify the loan account after confirmation from the bankers that, the amounts has been realized by the bankers and the same is to appropriate to this Respondent for which this Respondent is able to drive the information from the bankers only on 18-07-09 at 5-00 pm. Further contended that it is the practice of this Respondent that the original policy bond will be returned to the policy holder by Registered Post after duly re-assigning the policy bond in-favour of the policy holder and other formalities are met. The complainant has informed orally to this Respondent that, he will collect his two policy bonds from this Respondent personally. Relying on the submission of the complainant this Respondent waited till 27-08-08 and he assigned the policy bonds in-favour of the complainant and dispatched on 28-08-08 through Speed Post vide No. RL 393571607 for safe dispatch to the complainant. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of this Respondent as such this Respondent is not liable to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards damages and cost in favour of complainant. 3. During the course of enquiry the complainant has filed his sworn-affidavit by way of examination-in-chief In-rebuttal one Sri. N.Manjunath S/o. M.K. Narayanaswamy the Assistant Administrative Officer L & HPF (Department) LIC of India Divisional Office, Raichur, has filed his sworn affidavit by way of examination-in-chief on behalf of Respondent. On behalf of complainant (8) documents were got marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8. Similarly on behalf of the Respondent (3) documents at Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-3 were got marked. 4. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The following points arise for our consideration and determination: 1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency in service by the Respondents, as alleged.? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for.? 5. Our finding on the above points are as under:- 1. In the Affirmative. 2. As per final order for the following REASONS POINT NO.1:- 6. The complainant has produced (two) loan paid receipts dt. 14-07-08 marked at Ex.P- 1 & Ex.P-2, two letters dt. 28-06-02 issued by the Respondent Branch Manager to the complainant marked at Ex.P-3 and Ex.P-4, Statement of Accounts issued by ING Vysya Bank Ltd., in-respect of complainant is marked at Ex.P-5, two letters dt. 17-07-08 issued by Respondent Bank Manager to the complainant marked at Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7, and policy saving Bench Marks issued by Respondent called for by the complainant from Respondent marked at Ex.P-8. The Respondent has produced the Statement of Accounts issued by Axis Bank Ltd., Raichur in-favour of Respondent marked at Ex.R-1, Policy loan re-payment detail pertaining two policy Nos. 660070149 and 075682344 of complainant marked at Ex.R-2 and the extract of speed post booking journal issued by Department of Post India dt 28-08-08 in-token of service of letter on Respondents at Ex.R-3. 7. From the perusal of the Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-2 i.e, Loan Re-payment and Loan Interest Receipts issued by the Respondent it appears that the complainant has repaid the entire loan amount of Rs. 52,880/- on 14-07-08 through cheque. Though these two receipts are not particular about whether the complainant has repaid the loan amount by way of cheque or not, but on going through the Ex.P-5 the statement of accounts issued by ING Vysya Bank Extension Counter District Court Complex, and the policy loan repayment details produced by the Respondent at Ex.R-2 it is very clear that the complainant has repaid the entire loan amount on 14-07-08 through two cheques bearing Nos. 693894 for Rs. 39,746/- & cheque bearing No. 693893 for Rs. 13,184/-. Further these two documents disclose that after receipt of said two cheques the Respondent has sent it for realization. The entries in the Ex.P-5 on 15-07-08 disclose that two cheques have been honoured and amount has been credited to the account of LIC of India on the same day i.e, on 15-07-08. From these entries it also clearly goes to show that the entire loan transaction has been come to an end on 17-07-08 itself. Under these circumstances we do not find any base on the say of Respondent that they have received information from the banker only on 18-07-08 at 5-00 pm and till then they have waited for the confirmation for realization. In order to establish their case the Respondent has not produced any piece of evidence to show that they have received intimation from the bank in-respect of realization of the amount on 18-07-08 at about 5-00 pm. Of-course the Respondent produced the Ex.R-1 i.e, Statement of Account of Respondent issued by Axis Bank. From the close perusal of the said document there is no any entry about the realization of two cheques issued by the complainant and also that is not particular about the amount of Rs. 52,880/- received from the complainant on 18-07-08 itself. On the contrary Ex.R-2 produced by Respondent clearly speaks that the cheque has been realized on 17-07-08 itself but not on 18-07-08 as contended by the Respondent. When the Respondent has admitted at Ex.R-2 that Respondent Office has received the entire loan amount on 14-07-08 through cheque and same has been realized on 17-07-08 or on 18-07-08 as the case may be, then we do not find any substance as to why return of policy bonds were withheld till 27-08-08. Under these circumstances there is no wrong to say that the Respondent has withheld the policy bonds for no reason and thereby caused delay in reassigning the same to the complainant. It is worth-while to note that the Respondent office has issued two letters to the complainant as per Ex.P-6 & Ex.P-7 on 17-07-08. These two letters clearly speak about remittance of Rs. 39,746/- and Rs. 13,134/- respectively received on 14-07-08 and also speaks that the loan now outstanding on the policy is Rs. NIL. From this also it is very clear that the Respondent is sure about realization of the loan amount on 17-07-08 itself. Further when the Respondent issued these two letters to the complainant on 17-07-08 what has prevented the Respondent to hand over the two policy bonds to the complainant on the same day itself when the complainant himself had approached to the Respondent on 17-07-08. 8. Ex.P-8 is Bench Marks which is called for by complainant from the Respondent office. At Para-2 of this Ex.P-8 it is clearly mentioned that the time limit is three days to re-assign the policy bonds. But the Respondent has returned the policy bonds to the complainant on 28-07-08 through Registered Post as per their own Ex.R-3. From this, it is very clear that there was a delay more than three days as stipulated in Bench Mark at Ex.P-8. 9. It is the case of the Respondent that the complainant orally informed to Respondent that, he will collect his policy bonds from the Respondent personally and relying on the submission of the complainant they waited till 27-08-08 but the complainant did not approach the Respondent upto that date and thereafter on 28-08-08 they sent the two policy bonds to the complainant through speed post vide No. RL No. 393571607. We do not find any reason so as to believe this contention of the Respondent because when the Respondent contending that it is the practice of the Respondent office that the original policy bonds will be returned to the policy holder by the Registered Post after duly reassigning the policy in-favour of the policy holder and other formalities are met, as contended in Para-4 of the written version. Further we do not find any reason why the Respondent waited upto 27-08-08 and why they did not send it by post immediately after receiving the intimation from the bank i.e, on 18-07-08 as per their practice as contended in Para-3 of their written version. This itself would go to show that the say of the Respondent in this regard is nothing but a false reason in order to avoid their responsibility in committing delay in sending the policy bonds to the complainant. Hence we find deficiency on the part of Respondent as contended by the complainant in sending the policy bonds to the complainant and therefore we hold that the complainant has proved his case against the Respondent. So Point No-1 is answered in the Affirmative. POINT NO.2:- 10. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards damages and cost of litigation. Though there was a delay in re-assigning the policy bonds by the Respondent to the complainant near about 10-11 days but it is not the case of the complainant that the non-delivery of the policy bonds immediately after realization of loan amount, has caused any loss to him and it is not his case that the policy bonds in-question were required to him immediately in order to keep them for any other security or for pledge for his necessities. After receiving the same from the Respondent he suppose to keep with him only in order to avail the policy benefits after the maturity. Therefore we do not find more serious loss to the complainant. But any how it was the duty of the Respondent to return the policy bonds to the complainant immediately after completion of formalities in-respect of receipt of the loan amount. However in-view of our fore-going discussions, reasons and finding on Point No-1, coupled with the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel it just and proper to award compensation of Rs. 5,000/- including cost of litigation. In this view of the matter we pass the following order: ORDER The complaint of the complainant is allowed in part. The Respondent shall pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant including cost of litigation. The Respondent shall comply this order within (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Office to furnish certified copy of this order to both the parties forth-with free of cost. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 09-02-09) Sd/- Sri. N.H. Savalagi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
