BEFORE THE MANDYA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANDYA PRESENT: 1. SIDDEGOWDA, B.Sc., LLB., President, 2. M.N.MANOHARA, B.A., LLB., Member, 3. A.P.MAHADEVAMMA, B.Sc., LLB., Member, ORDER Complaint No.MDF/C.C.No.132/2008 Order dated this the 26th day of March 2009 COMPLAINANT/S Sri.Anand Sericulture Extension Officer, Department of Sericulture, Doddagarudanahalli, Mandya Taluk & District. (By Sri.H.S.Lokapal Rao., Advocate) -Vs- OPPOSITE PARTY/S 1. The Divisional Manager, L.I.C. of India, Near Tippu Circle, Mysore. 2. The Branch Manager, L.I.C. of India, Bandigowda Layout, Mandya. (By Sri.S.Sudarshan., Advocate) Date of complaint 11.12.2008 Date of service of notice to Opposite parties 22.12.2008 Date of order 26.03.2009 Total Period 3 Months 4 Days Result The complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within 2 months with cost of Rs.500/-. Sri.Siddegowda, President 1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, to direct the Opposite party to waive off the interest and penal interest on loan amount subsequent to August 1996 and for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- with costs. 2. The case of the complainant is that he availed loan on four L.I.C. polices in the month of March 1995, when he was working at Ramanagar. For the repayment of the said loan in the month of August 1996, he approached the Opposite party Branch Office at K.R.Pet as he was transferred to that place. But, the officials of K.R.Pet Branch Office informed the complainant that there was no loan existing on the said policies and refused to receive the payment from him. Subsequently, at periodic intervals of time the complainant made sincere attempts for repayment of the loan by enquiring at different branches of the Opposite party as in general, the policy profiles and loan dockets were being transferred to the places where the policy holder would be transferred. In the month of June 2005 again the complainant approached the Opposite party Branch Office at K.R.Pet and requested to provide him the status report of all the said policies. The branch Manager orally informed that they have sent a letter to branch office at Mandya regarding the status report and directed the complainant to approach Mandya Branch Office and accordingly, he approached on 2nd Opposite party and requested for status report of the said policies and 2nd Opposite party issued 4 computer copies of the status report of the said policies which clearly state that there was no previous loan existing on all the 4 policies. But, to his surprise a loan repayment quotation slip dated 24.01.2008 was sent to the complainant by 2nd Opposite party with a calculation of interest. As per the calculation made by the 2nd Opposite party, the complainant required to repay a sum of Rs.52,507/-. Then, the complainant sent a letter on 22.05.2008 to 2nd Opposite party to waive off the interest levied on the loan amount and copy to 1st Opposite party, but the Opposite parties did not oblige the report. Then, the legal notice was sent to 1st & 2nd Opposite parties and they have not sent any reply. Due to the negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the Opposite parties an interest of Rs.38,107/- is accumulated on principle amount of Rs.14,400/- which is almost 3 times the principle amount for which Opposite parties are responsible. The Opposite parties have committed deficiency in service in not rendering proper information and have caused mental agony and inconvenience. Therefore, the present complaint is filed. 3. The Opposite parties have filed common version, admitting that the complainant has obtained loans on 4 policies on 07.03.1995and the total loan amount is Rs.18,600/- and the loan was sanctioned at Channapatna Branch Office. The Complainant has not approached any of the Branch Offices for repayment of the loan and interest, all the loan dockets were transferred from Channapatna to K.R.Pet Branch Office on 21.11.1995 itself. Had the complainant approached the branch, Opposite party would have accepted the amount. The allegation that the Opposite party refused to receive the payment is utterly false. As per the condition No.3of the policy loan application, the complainant has to pay half yearly compounded interest at 10.5%. The life assured should inform the Opposite party in writing as to the actual place of his work and his intention to get the policy and loan records transferred. The averment that generally the records will be transferred to place to place of transfer of the life assured and the complainant made sincere attempt to repay the loan are all false. The complainant was not deligent in paying the half yearly loan interest and kept quiet for a long time. The complainant is bound to repay the loan amount demanded by the Opposite party as per the conditions. Though the complainant requested to waive the interest, but reply was sent expressing the inability to waive the loan interest. All the policies are due to maturity within a short period. The complainant in order to make unlawful gain, but not paying the loan and interest, has approached this Honble Forum with unclean hands, selfish motives. The question of waiver of loan interest is not possible. There is no cause of action and there is no deficiency in service and hence, the Opposite parties are not liable to pay any compensation and complaint is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. During trial, the complainant & 2nd Opposite party are examined and produced documents Ex.C.1 to C.7. On behalf of the Opposite party one witness is examined and documents Ex.R.1 to R.12 are marked. 5. We have heard both sides. 6. Now the points that arise for our considerations are:- 1. Whether the Opposite party has committed deficiency in service by giving misleading information with regard to the loan? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to waiver of the interest on the loan? 3. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation? 7. Our findings and reasons are as here under:- 8. The undisputed facts are that the complainant being a Government Servant had obtained 4 L.I.C. policies from the Opposite parties as per Ex.R.1 to R.4 and he has availed the loan of Rs.5,500/- on Ex.R.1, Rs.6,000/- on Ex.R.2, Rs.2,000/- on Ex.R.3 and Rs.4,200/- on Ex.R.4 on 02.03.1995. The loan applications Ex.R.6 & R.8 are not disputed. Under this application, the condition is that the complainant has agreed to pay interest at compounding half yearly to the Corporation and the policies are assigned in favour of the Opposite party and these documents revealed that the loan was disbursed at Channapatna Branch when the complainant was working in Ramanagar. The grievance of the complainant is that when he was transferred to K.R.Pet during 1996, he enquired in the Branch Office of the Opposite party to pay the interest, but the Branch Office informed that there was no loan existing on the said policies and refused to receive the payment from him and at periodic intervals of time, he made sincere attempts for repayment of the loan by enquiring at different branches of the Opposite party, but there is no material. It is admitted by him that he has not paid any amount towards the loan, though his duty is as to pay the loan with interest. According to him, loan amount was being deducted in his salary. But, no documents are produced at all. He has not sought for in writing about the loan particulars till 2005 and he kept quiet for 10 years. But the evidence of the complainant that he approached K.R.Pet branch in June 2005 requesting for status report of the policies and they directed him to approach the branch office at Mandya and then he approached the 2nd Opposite party Branch and 2nd Opposite party Branch issued 4 computer copies of the status report of the said policies. The complainant has produced Ex.C.3, C.4, C.5 and C.6 wherein policy particulars are mentioned, but with regard to the loan details, it is mentioned as no previous loan exists. 2nd Opposite party has admitted that Ex.C.3 to C.6 have been issued from his branch office and except L.I.C. Office, those documents cannot be issued from anywhere. The contention of the advocate for the Opposite party is that Ex.C.3 to C.6 though computerized they are not bearing the seal of the branch office and signature of the officer who issued, therefore they cannot be considered at all as evidence. Admittedly, Ex.C.3 to C.6 are computerized copies issued from the 2nd Opposite party Branch Office on 09.03.2006 and hence they do not require the signature and seal of the officer who issued. The evidence of the complainant that he had obtained Ex.C.3 to C.6 from 2nd Opposite party Office cannot be doubted at all, since they are generated by the computer. Nobody except, the official of L.I.C. can issue such documents and hence they are relevant for consideration. Of course, it is admitted fact that the complainant has not paid the interest and loan on the policy and he was aware that he was due of the loan and interest. But, when the complainant approached to know the details of the loan and interest, the Opposite party should have furnished the proper information, but surprisingly they have issued wrong information in Ex.C.3 to C.6 stating no previous loan exists. Therefore, the 2nd Opposite party Branch has committed deficiency in service in giving wrong information about the loan status to the complainant, because if the proper information had been given, the complainant would have made efforts to deposit the interest to the loan. Therefore, we hold that 2nd Opposite party has committed deficiency in service by giving wrong information about the loan status. 9. The complainant has sought for waiver of interest and penal interest charged on the loan, on the ground that would have paid the loan and interest if the information had been given. But, merely because the Opposite party has not furnished the information the complainant cannot escape the liability of payment of interest and loan amount obtained on the policies admittedly. In fact, he has assigned the policies in favour of the Opposite party for the loan security and the condition is that he is liable to pay interest 10.5% compounded half yearly. In spite of it, he has not made efforts to deposit the loan. Nothing prevented the complainant to deposit the interest or principle mentioning the policy number on which he has obtained the loan. Therefore, in view of the conditions of the loan sanctioned, the complainant is liable to pay interest as agreed upon as per the contract and the complainant is not entitled to waiver of the interest or compound interest. 10. The complainant has sought for compensation of Rs.50,000/- for deficiency in service and mental agony. It cannot be said that all the policies are going to mature shortly and hence, the present complaint is filed, because only one policy i.e., Ex.R.2 is going to mature on 28.02.2009. It is expected that Opposite party Branches should furnish proper information to the policy holder whenever they seek information. The Opposite party Branch Offices should not furnish wrong information by dereliction of duty and it leads to loose good faith earned by the Opposite party Corporation. Therefore, in the circumstances of the case for mental agony and deficiency in service, it is reasonable to award compensation of Rs.5,000/-, so that Opposite party Corporation would issue instructions to all the branches to furnish correct information about the policy particulars and loan particulars. 11. In the result, we proceed to pass the following order; ORDER The complaint is allowed, directing the Opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within 2 months with cost of Rs.500/-. (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the open Forum this the 26th day of March 2009). (PRESIDENT) (MEMBER) (MEMBER)
