F I N A L   O R D E R

This is a case U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer directing the O.P. to pay the matured value with 9% interest of the two life insurance policies, to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony, to pay Rs.2,500/- as litigation cost and other relief.

The case of the complainant is that the complainant was purchased two life insurance policies vide policy Nos. 45076421 and 450705911 from the O.P. No.1. The complainant was intended to construct building, took loan from the O.P. No.2 for which the complainant had to pledge two policy certificates mentioned above as mortgage and as payment of monthly installments she had to submit post dated cheques of similar amount to O.P. No.2. The O.P. No.2 had been encashed the monthly installment amount from the post dated cheques regularly and the complainant was never defaulted. The above said two policies were matured, one in the month of December, 2013 another in the month of March, 2014 and the complainant contacted with the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 to settle the loan amount and to adjust the policy matured amount but the O.P. did not pay heed. Finding no alternative the complainant was forced to come before this Forum.

The O.P. No.1 appear by filing W.V. denying the allegations of the complainant stating inter alia that the case is not maintainable, the matured amount of the policies have been adjusted with the loan amount, the O.Ps. have acted as per rules and regulations of the company and the O.P. pray to dismiss the complaint.

The O.P. No.2 did not contest the case as such the case is heard ex-parte against O.P. No.2.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

To prove her case the complainant has submitted memo of evidence, answer of questionnaires, some photocopies of documents like as policy, list of post dated cheques submitted to the O.P. No.2 and message addressed to the Assistant Director, Uttar Dinajpur R.O., Directorate of C. A. & F. B. P., etc.

The O.P. No.1 has submitted W.V., questionnaires, written argument, photocopies of schedule of receipt payment of monthly installments and letter addressed to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices, Kolkata to prove their case.

O.P. No.2 did not contest the case, so, the case is heard ex-parte against O.P. No.2.

We carefully perused the complaint, W.V., evidences, written argument and photocopies of documents filed by the both sides. The contents of the complaint it appears that the complainant was purchased two life insurance policies from the O.P. No.1 and for construction of building, she took loan from O.P. No.2 by way of mortgage said two policies were pledged and also submitted required post dated cheques of similar amount as monthly installments of the loan amount to the O.P. No.2 at the time of granting loan. The O.P. No.2 was regularly encashed the post dated cheques through S.B.I. as monthly installment of loan amount up to 04.09.2014 which clearly shows from the O.P., the receipt payment schedule of O.P. No.2. Moreover there was/is no comments that any cheque was bounced or any monthly installment was defaulted. The pledge two policies were matured, one was matured in the month of December, 2013 and another was matured in the month of March, 2014. Thereafter, the complainant was contacted with the O.Ps. to adjust the loan amount with the policy matured amount and refund the balance amount but the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 did not pay heed to the claim of the complainant. Then the complainant knocked the door to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs Department, Regional Office, Kolkata for getting proper relief on 22.03.2014 but getting no reply from the end of the Govt. Department as well as from the end of the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 the complainant moved before this Forum. From the document of O.P. No.1 it appears that the borrower is an employee of Raiganj Surendranath Mahavidyalaya. It reveals from the acknowledged receipt payments of monthly installment schedules that the O.P. No.2 while adjusted the policy matured amount with the loan amount i.e. on 28.07.2014 then four post dated cheques i.e. 04.08.2014, 05.08.2014, 04.09.2014 and 05.09.2014 dated cheques of similar amount were under the custody of the O.P. No.2 but till date the O.P. neither gave any intimation to the complainant regarding adjustment of the loan amount with the policy matured amount of the complainant nor returned back the unused post dated cheques.

The O.P. No.1 by filing W.V. and written argument admitted that the complainant never intimate them regarding settlement of loan A/c and refunded the policy matured amount. But the O.P. No.2 LIC Housing Finance Ltd. vide their letter dated 07.05.2014 replied against the complaint lodged to the Assistant Director, Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices “that the complainant has to give a fresh representation to our company for the utilization of the matured amount and accordingly we will decide and do the needful”. Such comments also mentioned in the W.V. and written argument filed by the O.P. No.1 and this O.P. also admitted in the W.V. as well as written argument that the complainant never intimated the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 for return back the policy matured amount and refund the balanced amount. Now the question arises if there is the mandatory provision of the rules and regulations of O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 that the borrower “has to give fresh representation to them for the utilization of the matured amount and accordingly the O.Ps. will do act”, but in the instant case the O.Ps. are unable to answer on which ground they have violated rules & regulations of the O.P. company keeping in the dark of the policy holder. In the instant case the O.Ps. are also unable to prove that the borrower was defaulter for payment of installment or post dated cheques were bounced at the time of encashment for loan account. But the O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 without given any intimation to the complainant and also without consent of the complainant adjusted the policy matured amount with the loan account which contravenes the mandatory provision of the rules and regulations of the O.P. No.2.

In view of the discussions hereinbefore this Forum is of opinion that the deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. have been proved and the act of the O.Ps. in the present case amounts to unfair trade practice. As such the complainant is entitled to get compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony, entitled to get litigation cost and also entitled to return back the unused post dated cheques from the custody of the O.Ps.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is

ORDERED,

That the complaint case being No.CC-64/2014 is allowed on contest against the O.P. No.1 and ex-parte against the O.P. No.2. Accordingly the complainant do get an award directing the O.Ps. to pay sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) only as compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony, to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from this day, failing which the total sum of Rs.22,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand) only will carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint petition till the date of full realization. It is further directed the O.Ps. to return back the post dated unused cheques to the complainant within one month from the date of this order. The complainant is at liberty to put this order in execution against the O.Ps. in accordance with law.

Let copy of this order be supplied to each parties free of cost.