LIC Housing Finance Limited . No.15/1,Hayes Centre,Hayes Road,Bangalore.500025 V/S Savithri Srikanth S/o Savitri Venkatgiraiah, R/o H.No.7-5-290,Jawaharnagar,Raichur. - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Raichur

DCFR.28/08

Savithri Srikanth S/o Savitri Venkatgiraiah, R/o H.No.7-5-290,Jawaharnagar,Raichur. - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC Housing Finance Limited . No.15/1,Hayes Centre,Hayes Road,Bangalore.500025 - Opp.Party(s)

Avaneesg Taranath

29 Oct 2009

ORDER

DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,DC Office Compound, Sath Kacheri
consumer case(CC) No. DCFR.28/08

Savithri Srikanth S/o Savitri Venkatgiraiah, R/o H.No.7-5-290,Jawaharnagar,Raichur.						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
Shri Gubba Veeresh S/o Late Gubba Veerenna Occ Authorized LIC H/F Ltd Opp Banni Gida, Near Bus Stop Vasavi Nagar Raichur LIC Housing Finance Limited . No.15/1,Hayes Centre,Hayes Road,Bangalore.500025 LIC Housing Finance Ltd,						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Savitri Srikanth against the Opposites 1 to 3 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to refund of Rs. 1,58,487/- with 12% interest and to award punitive damages, compensation amount and to reprimand the opposites etc., with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, she availed loan amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- from opposite No- 1 & 2 in four installments to build house in her vacant plot. The statement given by opposite No-2 after availing the first installment shows that it deducted Rs. 1,45,525/- towards premium amount of the Gruha Surakash Policy of Rs. 25,00,000/-. Thereafter she was compelled to pay an amount of Rs. 43,962/- as a difference in the accounts on 15-07-05, but the entire amount was not remitted to LIC for insurance purposes and no policy was issued by the insurance company due to non payment by the premium by opposite No-2, after several efforts made by the complainant she noticed that her amount fell in Main LIC office, JC Road, Bangalore. The delay took place in subscribing the LIC policy was due to negligence of opposite Nos. 1 & 2 and thereby opposite No- 1 & 2 found guilty under deficiency in their services and accordingly she filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint. 3. Opposite Party No-1 & 2 appeared in this case opposite No-2 filed written version. Opposite No-1 adopted the same written version. Both the opposites have denied the allegations made by the complainant by contending that there was no delay in remitting the amount of Rs. 1,45,525/-, other allegations made against them are specifically denied, complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in her complaint and thereby they prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. Opposite No-3 appeared through his Advocate, filed written version by contending that there is no previty of contract in between him with the complainant, he is only an agent, as such the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, opposite No. 1 & 2 deducted an amount of Rs. 1,45,525/- from the first installment of the loan of the complainant towards premium amount of the LIC but the said amount was not remitted to LIC even after one year, they are negligent in remitting the said premium amount and thereby both the Opposites found guilty under deficiency in their service.? 2. Whether complaint is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint. 3. What order? 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative. (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement. (3) In-view of the findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed she was noted as PW-1, documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 are marked. 8. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Divisional Manager (officer in-charge) of Opposite No-2 was filed, he was noted as RW-1 and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-22 are marked. 9. In the instant case deduction of Rs. 1,45,525/- by opposite No- 1 & 2 in the first installment of loan sanctioned to the complainant as a premium amount towards LIC policy of the complainant is not in dispute. 10. The point for our consideration is that, whether the opposite No- 1 & 2 not remitted the said premium amount towards LIC policy of the complainant within reasonable time and thereby there was deficiency in service on the part of them, otherwise there is no negligence and deficiency in service on their part. 11. The material documents to ascertain and to decide this aspect of the case of parties is Ex.P-4 which is the letter issued by LIC Housing Ltd., dt. 29-10-05 in which these opposite Nos. 1 & 2 have clearly admitted the receipt of Rs. 1,58,487/- as a premium and remitted to LIC f India n 04-04-05 & 03-08-05. The premium amount of Rs. 1,45,525/- was deducted by these opposite Nos. 1 & 2 on 29-04-04 by issuing balance amount of Rs. 9,98,000/- vide cheque dt. 29-04-04, in the payment of first installment discloses fact that Rs. 1,45,525/- of the complainant fell with opposite No.2 from 29-04-04 to 04-04-05 and 03-08-05. No doubt the opposite No-2 might have recovered certain amount as a balance amount towards premium subsequent to the date of 04-04-05, however it is clear that the amount of Rs. 1,45,525/- was kept by opposite No-2 without remittance of it to LIC towards policy of the complainant. 12. To substantiate the retention of the said amount by opposite No-2 it relied on Ex.R-20 the letter issued to the complainant, this letter dt. 07-09-07 in para-2 of the said letter it is stated by it that premium amount of Rs. 1,58,487/- was remitted to the LIC of India on 04-04-05 and 03-08-05. The other documents Ex.R-11, Ex.R-10 are not supporting the case of opposite No-2 for withholding the amount for one year, as such we have not accepted the explanation with documents produced by the opposite No- 1 & 2 to over come the said negligence of opposite No-2, as such we are of the view that the complainant proved his case against opposite No- 1 & 2 regarding the deficiency in service committed by them, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in affirmative. 13. As regards to the reliefs claimed by the complainant, he listed five different types of reliefs as noted in the prayer column of the complainant. The complainant proved his case for deficiency in service against opposite No- 1 & 2, keeping in view of the nature of the deficiency in service committed by these opposites, we are of the view that granting an lump sum amount of Rs. 3,000/- under the head of deficiency in service by these opposites will suffice to meet out the ends of justice, accordingly it is granted and he is entitled to recover the said amount from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally accordingly we answered Point No-2. Case against opposite No-3 is dismissed as there are no allegations against him. POINT NO.3:- 14. In view of our finding on Point Nos-1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 3,000/- from the Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Opposite No. 1 & 2 are hereby given One month time from the date of the judgement for to make payment of the said amount to the complainant. Complaint against opposite No-3 is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 28-10-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.

JUDGEMENT By Sri. Pampapathi President:- This is a complaint filed by the complainant Savitri Srikanth against the Opposites 1 to 3 U/sec. 12 of Consumer Protection Act for to refund of Rs. 1,58,487/- with 12% interest and to award punitive damages, compensation amount and to reprimand the opposites etc., with other reliefs as deems fit to the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief facts of the complainant case are that, she availed loan amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- from opposite No- 1 & 2 in four installments to build house in her vacant plot. The statement given by opposite No-2 after availing the first installment shows that it deducted Rs. 1,45,525/- towards premium amount of the Gruha Surakash Policy of Rs. 25,00,000/-. Thereafter she was compelled to pay an amount of Rs. 43,962/- as a difference in the accounts on 15-07-05, but the entire amount was not remitted to LIC for insurance purposes and no policy was issued by the insurance company due to non payment by the premium by opposite No-2, after several efforts made by the complainant she noticed that her amount fell in Main LIC office, JC Road, Bangalore. The delay took place in subscribing the LIC policy was due to negligence of opposite Nos. 1 & 2 and thereby opposite No- 1 & 2 found guilty under deficiency in their services and accordingly she filed this complaint for the reliefs as prayed in her complaint. 3. Opposite Party No-1 & 2 appeared in this case opposite No-2 filed written version. Opposite No-1 adopted the same written version. Both the opposites have denied the allegations made by the complainant by contending that there was no delay in remitting the amount of Rs. 1,45,525/-, other allegations made against them are specifically denied, complainant is not entitled for any one of the reliefs as prayed in her complaint and thereby they prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 4. Opposite No-3 appeared through his Advocate, filed written version by contending that there is no previty of contract in between him with the complainant, he is only an agent, as such the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable and prayed for to dismiss the complaint among other grounds. 5. In-view of the pleadings of the parties. Now the points that arise for our consideration and determination are that: 1. Whether the complainant proves that, opposite No. 1 & 2 deducted an amount of Rs. 1,45,525/- from the first installment of the loan of the complainant towards premium amount of the LIC but the said amount was not remitted to LIC even after one year, they are negligent in remitting the said premium amount and thereby both the Opposites found guilty under deficiency in their service.? 2. Whether complaint is entitled for the reliefs as prayed in the complaint. 3. What order? 6. Our findings on the above points are as under:- (1) In the affirmative. (2) As discussed in the body of this judgement. (3) In-view of the findings on Point No- 1 & 2, we proceed to pass the final order for the following : REASONS POINT NO.1 & 2:- 7. To prove the facts involved in these two points, affidavit-evidence of the complainant was filed she was noted as PW-1, documents Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-8 are marked. 8. On the other hand affidavit-evidence of Divisional Manager (officer in-charge) of Opposite No-2 was filed, he was noted as RW-1 and documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-22 are marked. 9. In the instant case deduction of Rs. 1,45,525/- by opposite No- 1 & 2 in the first installment of loan sanctioned to the complainant as a premium amount towards LIC policy of the complainant is not in dispute. 10. The point for our consideration is that, whether the opposite No- 1 & 2 not remitted the said premium amount towards LIC policy of the complainant within reasonable time and thereby there was deficiency in service on the part of them, otherwise there is no negligence and deficiency in service on their part. 11. The material documents to ascertain and to decide this aspect of the case of parties is Ex.P-4 which is the letter issued by LIC Housing Ltd., dt. 29-10-05 in which these opposite Nos. 1 & 2 have clearly admitted the receipt of Rs. 1,58,487/- as a premium and remitted to LIC f India n 04-04-05 & 03-08-05. The premium amount of Rs. 1,45,525/- was deducted by these opposite Nos. 1 & 2 on 29-04-04 by issuing balance amount of Rs. 9,98,000/- vide cheque dt. 29-04-04, in the payment of first installment discloses fact that Rs. 1,45,525/- of the complainant fell with opposite No.2 from 29-04-04 to 04-04-05 and 03-08-05. No doubt the opposite No-2 might have recovered certain amount as a balance amount towards premium subsequent to the date of 04-04-05, however it is clear that the amount of Rs. 1,45,525/- was kept by opposite No-2 without remittance of it to LIC towards policy of the complainant. 12. To substantiate the retention of the said amount by opposite No-2 it relied on Ex.R-20 the letter issued to the complainant, this letter dt. 07-09-07 in para-2 of the said letter it is stated by it that premium amount of Rs. 1,58,487/- was remitted to the LIC of India on 04-04-05 and 03-08-05. The other documents Ex.R-11, Ex.R-10 are not supporting the case of opposite No-2 for withholding the amount for one year, as such we have not accepted the explanation with documents produced by the opposite No- 1 & 2 to over come the said negligence of opposite No-2, as such we are of the view that the complainant proved his case against opposite No- 1 & 2 regarding the deficiency in service committed by them, accordingly we answered Point No-1 in affirmative. 13. As regards to the reliefs claimed by the complainant, he listed five different types of reliefs as noted in the prayer column of the complainant. The complainant proved his case for deficiency in service against opposite No- 1 & 2, keeping in view of the nature of the deficiency in service committed by these opposites, we are of the view that granting an lump sum amount of Rs. 3,000/- under the head of deficiency in service by these opposites will suffice to meet out the ends of justice, accordingly it is granted and he is entitled to recover the said amount from opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally accordingly we answered Point No-2. Case against opposite No-3 is dismissed as there are no allegations against him. POINT NO.3:- 14. In view of our finding on Point Nos-1 & 2 we proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The complaint filed by the complainant is partly allowed with cost. The complainant is entitled to recover a total sum of Rs. 3,000/- from the Opposite Nos. 1 & 2 jointly and severally. Opposite No. 1 & 2 are hereby given One month time from the date of the judgement for to make payment of the said amount to the complainant. Complaint against opposite No-3 is dismissed. Intimate the parties accordingly. (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum on 28-10-09) Sd/- Sri. Pampapathi, President, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Sri. Gururaj, Member, District Forum-Raichur. Sd/- Smt.Pratibha Rani Hiremath, Member. District Forum-Raichur.