Telangana

Mahbubnagar

CC/10/52

V.Ramchandraiah, S/o late Cuchanna, 59 years, Occ: Pensioner - Complainant(s)

Versus

LIC of India, Mahabubnagar - Opp.Party(s)

Sri B.Rama Rao

16 Nov 2011

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM AT MAHABUBNAGAR

                                                                               Wednesday, the 16^th day of November, 2011 

 

                                                         Present:- Sri P. Sridhara Rao, B.Sc., LL.B., President

       Sri A. Veerupakshi, B.A., LL.B., Member

 

C.C.NO. 52  Of   2010

 

Between:-

V. Ramchandraiah S/o late Buchanna, aged: 59 years, Occ: Pensioner,

R/o H.No.3-5-2, Kummarwadi, Mahabubnagar.

        … Complainant

And

1. Life Insurance Corporation of India, Mahabubnagar Branch, Represented  by its Branch Manager.

2. Andhra Bank, Main Branch, Mahabubnagar.

    (Added as O.P.No.2 as per Order dated 26-4-2011 passed in I.A.No.49 of  2011).

   … Opposite Parties

 

 

 This C.C. coming on before us for final hearing on 4-11-2011 in the presence of Sri B. Rama Rao, Sri V. Amarnath Reddy and Sri G. Surender Reddy, Advocates, Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant and   Sri Lakshmi Kantha Rao, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties and the matter having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum made the following:   

 

O R D E R

 (Sri A. Veerupakshi, Member)

 

1.  This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking a direction to the opposite parties to pay the amount payable to him under the policy amounting to Rs.71,025/- without regard to the cheque No.568434, dated 26-6-1999 drawn on Andhra Bank, Mahabubnagar in favour of unconcerned person. 

 

2.  The averments of the complaint in brief are that:-  The complainant has been subscriber of policy No.60791888 with the opposite party with FPR dated 31-1-1985 commencing from 28-1-1985 and would mature on 28-1-2010. The amount of policy subscribed was Rs.25,000/- which on maturity will be Rs.71,025/-. The opposite party had even sent bonus intimation to the complainant. While the matter stood thus, the complainant had submitted application for maximum possible loan on his policy and only an amount of Rs.650/- was advanced as loan to the complainant by intimation dated 27-9-1988. In the meanwhile the complainant retired from service in the month of May, 2009 and incidentally he went to the office of opposite party to check the status of his policy. To his surprise he was informed that the opposite party had advanced another sum of Rs.10,000/- also in the year 1999 which is absolutely false.   Immediately the complainant submitted a representation dated 9-5-2009 and also on 18-8-2009 to the opposite party to verify the fact and do justice to him.  But the opposite party had not given information to him till got served a requisition dated 17-12-2009 to which the opposite party addressed a letter contending that a cheque was issued for a sum of Rs.10,047/- vide cheque No.568434 dated 26-6-1999 drawn on Andhra Bank, Mahabubnagar, and that a letter was addressed to the Andhra Bank in the matter.  Thereafter the complainant got issued a legal notice dated 23-2-2000 to both the present opposite party and Andhra Bank.  In response to the said letter on 5-4-2000 the opposite party addressed a letter forwarding the photocopy of the loan application dated 23-6-1999 purported to have been signed by the complainant and copy of the loan quotation contending surprisingly that the signature of the complainant is tallying on the said loan application. The opposite party has been indifferent to the willingness of the complainant right from May, 2009 till date for proof of clearance of the alleged cheque.  The banker also is not answering any queries of the complainant.  The said act on the part of the opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice, insufficiency of service and dereliction of duties.  Therefore the opposite party is liable to pay the entire money to the complainant in discharge of their liability under the policy in question irrespective of the so called enormous cheque.  Thus the present complaint is filed for the aforesaid relief. 

 

3. During the pendency of the present complaint OP-2 is added as a party to the present proceedings as per order in I.A.No.49/2011, dt.26-4-2011.  

 

4. The opposite party No.1 while admitting the issuance of the policy in question in the name of the complainant and denying the other material averments of the complaint stated that the complainant has applied for loan through his application dated 26-9-1988 for Rs.650/- from the opposite party and the same was sanctioned and disbursed to him, that later the complainant has applied for a further loan on the above said assigned policy in the year 1999 through his application dated 23-6-1999 and a gross loan of Rs.12,000/- was sanctioned after deducting the previous outstanding loan of Rs.650/- and interest thereon Rs.1,303/- and a net amount of Rs.10,047/- was paid to him through A/c Payee cheque No.568434, dated 26-6-1999 drawn on Andhra Bank, Mahabubnagar.  It is further stated that to the letter dated 17-12-2009 issued by the complainant under R.T.I. Act, the opposite party sent reply by way of E-mail dated 21-1-2010 intimating the said fact to him, that likewise to the legal notice dated 23-2-2010 got issued by the complainant also the opposite party gave reply to him on 5-4-2010 furnishing therein the full information regarding the second loan raised under the policy and also as per the request copy of the loan application dated 23-6-1999 signed by the complainant and copy of the loan quotation were sent to the complainant and therefore there is no truth in the complainant in saying that he had not availed second loan and not received the cheque and not received the loan amount from Andhra Bank, Mahabubnagar, as such there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency of service, dereliction of duties on the part of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limini with exemplary costs.         

 

5. The opposite party No.2 filed counter stating that as per their records the cheque No.568434, dt.26-6-1999 for Rs.10,047/- of Andhra Bank, Mahabubnagar was issued by the LIC of India in the name of  V. Ramachandraiah, the complainant herein, that in the said cheque   A/c Payee endorsement was cancelled, and that the said cheque was submitted before Ganesh Finance Corporation, Mahabubnagar for realization, that in turn the said finance corporation sent the cheque to his banker Indian Bank Branch, Mahabubnagar for realization, on that the Indian Bank Branch, Mahabubnagar submitted the cheque for realization before this OP and thereupon the proceeds of the cheque were transferred to the Indian Bank, Mahabubnagar. It is further stated that all other averments of the complaint pertains to monetary transactions or between the complainant and OP-1 and this OP is not concerned with the same.

 

6. Thereupon the complainant in support of his claim filed his affidavit evidence and additional affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-10.  On the other hand, the OP-1 got filed the affidavit evidence through its Manager and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-8. The OP-2 got filed its affidavit evidence through its Manager and got marked Exs.B-9 and B-10.      

 

7.  The points for determination now are: 

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of the OP-1 in 

          rendering service to the complainant as alleged?

     (ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief sought for by him? 

     (iii)  To what effect? 

 

8.  As per the material available on record including the very counter filed by the OP-1 it is an admitted fact that the OP-1 had issued policy in question in the name of the complainant commencing from 28-1-1985 with the maturity date 28-1-2010 with gross maturity value of Rs.71,025/-.  It is also an admitted fact that the complainant filed the present complaint before this Forum on 16-4-2010 i.e., after date of maturity of the policy at the time when there was a dispute arose between both the parties with regard to the payment of the difference amount of Rs.10,047/-.         

 

9. Point Nos.1 and 2:- The contention of the learned standing counsel for the OP-1 is that while the policy was in force the policy holder has applied for loan for the first time from the opposite party through his application dated 26-9-1988 for Rs.650/- and the same was sanctioned and disbursed to him, that thereafter the complainant has applied for further loan on the said assigned policy in the year 1999 vide application dated 23-6-1999 and thereupon a gross loan of Rs.12,000/- was sanctioned after deducting of the previous outstanding loan of Rs.650/- and interest thereon Rs.1,303/- a net amount of Rs.10,047/- was paid to the complainant through A/c Payee cheque No.568434, dated 26-6-1999 drawn on Andhra Bank, Mahabubnagar and therefore after deducting the said outstanding loan of Rs.12,000/- and the interest accrued thereon Rs.21,499/- and unpaid premium for two months @ Rs.88-20Ps., total comes to Rs.176-40Ps., from the gross maturity value of the policy of Rs.71,025/- the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.37,349-60Ps., rounded to Rs.37,350/- towards the net maturity value of the policy after the discharge form is received from the complainant.  

 

10. In this regard, the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant is that the complainant never applied for any further loan on the said assigned policy in the year 1999 and he was not paid any such net amount of Rs.10,047/- by way of any alleged A/c Payee cheque by the OP-1, as such he is entitled for the entire gross maturity value of the policy of Rs.71,025/-.  According to the contention of the OP-1 the complainant is also having due of Rs.176-40Ps., towards unpaid premium for two months @ Rs.88-20Ps.  The said fact is not disputed by the complainant at anywhere either in his affidavit evidence or through any documentary evidence. Therefore, we find that the complainant is not entitled for the said sum of Rs.176-40Ps., from out of the maturity value of the policy.

           

11. So the entire crux of the case is now with regard to the complainant applying for further loan through the application dated 23-6-1999 and sanctioning of the same and payment of net amount of Rs.10,047/- by the opposite party through A/c Payee cheque No.568434, dated 26-6-1999 drawn on Andhra Bank, Mahabubnagar.  It is the contention of the learned standing counsel for the opposite party that the complainant has applied for a further loan on the assigned policy in the year 1999 through his application dated 23-6-1999 and a gross loan of Rs.12,000/- was sanctioned and after deducting the previous outstanding loan and the agreed interest thereon a net amount of Rs.10,047/- was paid to the complainant through A/c Payee cheque No.568434, dated 26-6-1999 drawn on Andhra Bank, Mahabubnagar and the same was encashed by the complainant and even to the letter under R.T.I. Act and the legal notice got issued by the complainant the opposite party accordingly intimated the same to him furnishing the full information regarding the second loan raised by him under the policy enclosing the copies of the loan application and the loan quotation and there is no truth in the case of the complainant that he has not signed any paper and not received the second loan and he filed the present complaint with malicious intention to put the opposite party into troubles and there is no unfair trade practice or insufficiency of service or dereliction of duties on the part of the opposite party and furthermore the burden is on the complainant to make Andhra Bank, Main Branch, Mahabubnagar as necessary party to this complaint and thus the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  But when the complainant is completely denying the fact of his applying for a further loan and receipt of the alleged cheque for a sum of Rs.10,047/- from the OP-1 the burden lies on the OP-1 to establish the same. As stated above, it is the contention of the learned standing counsel for the OP-1 that they have issued an A/c Payee cheque for the said sum of Rs.10,047/- in favour of the complainant and the complainant has encashed the same.  If such is the situation and in order to establish their contention they ought to have filed the acknowledgement passed by the complainant in token of receipt of such A/c Payee cheque. But the opposite party failed to produce any such acknowledgement.  Instead of producing any such acknowledgement the OP-1 got produced the copy of such cheque Ex.B-9 through Andhra Bank by adding it as the OP-2.  According to the OP-2 the said cheque for a sum of Rs.10,047/- issued by the OP-1 was received by it through Indian Bank for realization when initially it was presented by one Ganesh Finance Corporation, Mahabubnagar for its realization.  In this regard, it is the contention of the OP-1 that the said cheque was a bearer cheque issued in favour of the complainant and the complainant might have sold it to the said Ganesh Finance Corporation, Mahabubnagar who in turn presented the same to his banker Indian Bank for realization. But such a presumption cannot be accepted unless and until it is clearly established by the OP-1.  A perusal of the recitals of Ex.B-9 copy of the cheque clearly goes to show that originally it was an A/c Payee cheque issued in favour of the complainant.  But there is an endorsement over the cheque as (A/c Payee Cancelled). The contention of the learned standing counsel for the OP-1 is that at the instance of the complainant himself the OP-1 made such endorsement over the cheque.  But absolutely there is no proof produced by the OP-1 in that regard.  Therefore, the contention of the OP-1 that the A/c Payee cheque was subsequently converted into a bearer cheque at the instance of the complainant is not tenable.  In fact, as per rules if a cheque is for a sum of Rs.10,047/- it should be issued by the OP-1 only in form of an A/c Payee cheque but they cannot convert it into a bearer cheque as per their wish. Further, the OP-1 also failed to establish as to how the said cheque issued by them gone to the hands of the said finance company for realization without consent of the complainant. Even there is no oral or any documentary evidence of the said finance company produced by the OP-1 in that regard. So, we find that such act on the part of the OP-1 converting the A/c Payee cheque into a bearer cheque that too without any production of proof of application etc., from the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice on its part.  In the absence of any such proof it cannot be said that an amount of Rs.10,047/- was paid to the complainant by way of an A/c Payee cheque towards the further loan applied by him and the said cheque amount was realized by the complainant.  Hence we find that there is no force in the contention of the learned standing counsel for the OP-1.  So, for the reasons stated above, we hold that the complainant in all is entitled to the gross maturity value of the policy of Rs.71,025/- with a less sum of Rs.176-40Ps., towards unpaid premium for two months @ Rs.88-20Ps., and Rs.650/- towards the loan admittedly obtained initially  by him together with the upto date interest thereon as per the rules of the OP-1 and the OP-1 is liable to pay the amount to the complainant.  Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the complainant and against the OP-1.     

 

12. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the OP-1 to pay to the complainant the gross maturity value of the policy of Rs.71,025/- with less amount of Rs.176-40Ps., towards unpaid premium for two months @ Rs.88-20Ps., and Rs.650/- towards the loan initially obtained by him together with the upto date interest thereon as per the rules of the OP-1 soon after the discharge form is received from the complainant. Since OP-2 is added as a party to the present proceedings by the OP-1 and as there is no specific relief sought for by the complainant against the OP-2 no order is needed in the matter with regard to the OP-2. No order as to the costs.     

 

         Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 16^th day of November, 2011.    

 

                                                                                                   I agree                                                                                             

MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT                          

   Appendix of evidence

      List of Witness examined

 

On behalf of Complainant:                          On behalf of Opposite Parties:   

- Nil -                                                                   - Nil -

                                       

List of documents marked:-

On behalf of Complainant:-    

 

Ex.A-1: Photostat copy of F.P.R., dt.31-1-1985.

Ex.A-2: Photostat copy of Bonus Intimation, dt.1-4-1989.

Ex.A-3: Copy of Letter, dt.27-9-1988.

Ex.A-4: Office copy of Requisition Letter, dt.17-12-2009.

Ex.A-5: Copy of E-Mail, dt.21-1-2010.

Ex.A-6: Office copy of Legal Notice, dt.23-2-2010.

Ex.A-7: Copy of E-Mail, dt.25-2-2010.

Ex.A-8: Copy of Letter, dt.5-4-2010.

Ex.A-9: Copy of Loan Quotation, dt.20-6-1999.

Ex.A-10: Copy of the Application for Loan, dt.23-6-1999.

 

On behalf of OPs.:                  

                        Ex.B-1: Original Application for Loan, dt.23-6-1999.

Ex.B-2: Original Policy Bond, dt.14-3-1985. 

Ex.B-3: Copy of Letter, dt.5-4-2010.

Ex.B-4: Copy of Letter, dt.13-1-2010.

Ex.B-5: Copy of Letter, 28-1-2010.

Ex.B-6: Copy of Letter, 8-2-2010.

Ex.B-7: Copy of Letter, 26-3-2010.

Ex.B-8: Original Policy Bond, dt.26-9-1988.

Ex.B-9: Photostat copy of Cheque, dt.26-6-1999.

Ex.B-10: Photostat copy of Statement of Account. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                

 

                                                                                 PRESIDENT                                                                                                                                                                                    

 

Copy to:-

1. Sri B. Rama Rao, Sri V. Amarnath Reddy and Sri G. Surender Reddy, Advocates,  

    Mahabubnagar on behalf of the complainant.

2. Sri Lakshmi Kantha Rao, Advocate, Mahabubnagar for the opposite parties.