JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. This judgment shall decide the above said two revision petitions which arise out from two separate complaints and the single judgment, rendered by the State Commission, Uttar Pradesh. The facts of the revision petition No.3483/2013 (CC No.10/07) are these. Sh. Rais Ahmad (since deceased), now, represented by his wife, Ms.M. Shahnaz Parveen, complainant No.1 and their two sons Nadeem Ahmad and Azim Ahmad, along with deceased two real brothers, Late Sanjeed Ahmad and Hafiz Ahmad/complainants in second complaint (CC No. 11/07 & RP No.3484/2013), formed one firm, in the name and style of “Three Brothers”. They obtained Cash Credit limit of Rs.2,25,000/- from Punjab National Bank, Branch Chandpur, District Bijnor, OP1, on 13.06.2000, after execution of the loan documents. With regard to said loan, Sh. Rais Ahmad pledged three policies, obtained from LIC and his brother pledged ten policies. 2. OP1 sent notice dated 17.08.2006 which was received by deceased Sh.Rais Ahmad. This notice was addressed to ‘M/s. Three Brothers’. It was stated that M/s. Three Brothers had committed negligence towards re-payment of loan and were not depositing their installments, on time. As on 01.07.2006, the outstanding balance in their account was Rs.82,899/- and further, interest was increasing continuously. It was alleged that they had violated the terms of the agreement. Notice was given to them to pay the amount, within 30 days, failing which, legal proceedings would be initiated. 3. Unfortunately, Rais Ahmad passed away, on 04.09.2006. On 12.09.2006, Sanjeed Ahmad and Hafeej Ahmed, for the purposes of depositing amount, approached the Senior Manager, Sh. Mangal Giri Ashok, Chandpur Branch, OP2. He informed that after issuance of notice, they had surrendered all the policies, obtained payments and the balance amount was deposited in their bank account. 4. It is contended that in case the policy subsisted, the complainants would have received the whole amount of Rs.5,50,000/- of the aforesaid three policies because of sudden death of Sh.Rais Ahmad. Consequently, complainants suffered loss and filed complaint (cc 10/07) before District Forum claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, as compensation and a sum of Rs.20,000/-, towards litigation expenses. In the other RP No. 3484 of 2013, the complaint (CC 11/07) was filed by the remaining two brothers, Sanjeed Ahmad and Hafiz Ahmad. In this case, the complainants had pledged 10 insurance policies and after surrendering the insurance policies, an amount of Rs.60,815/- was deposited in excess in their accounts. They have asked for compensation amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- for the payment prior to the period the payment is taken, Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony, litigation charges in the sum of Rs.15,000/- and interest @ 18% p.a. on the amounts claimed towards compensation and mental agony. 5. The District Forum, vide order dated 19.08.2010, directed as under : “……. Therefore, the liability to pay whole compensation amount is of opposite parties. In complaint No.10/07 complainant No.1 (because complainant No.2 & 3 are minor) compensation amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- along with 12 per cent interest and in the form of litigation expenses the amount of Rs.1,000/- and in complaint no.2 and complaint no.1/1 (because during the course of hearing of the complaint complainant no.1 died and in his place his wife two children are made as legal heirs, both of them are minor) for compensation the amount of Rs.50,000/- and for mental agony the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- along with 12 per cent interest and in the form of litigation expenses is entitled to the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. ORDER Opposite parties are hereby directed that they in complaint No.10/07 to complainant No.1, should pay Rs.5,00,000/- along with 12% interest (from the date of filing of the suit till the date of actual payment) and in the form of litigation expenses, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and to complainant No.2 of complaint No.11/07, and for compensation of complaint No.1/1, Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony Rs.1,00,000/- along with 12% (from the date of filing of the suit till the date of actual payment) and in the form of litigation expenses the amount of Rs.10,000/- is to be paid within 30 days”. 6. The above said order is a wee bit confusing, if it is read as a whole. Aggrieved by that order, two appeals were filed before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide its order dated 23.07.2013, dismissed the appeals. 7. We have heard the counsel for the parties. Counsel for the Petitioner, Bank, vehemently argued that the documents appearing from pages 79 to 88 of the paper-book, clearly go to show that the complainants had already surrendered the LIC policies. They had affixed their signatures on the surrender Deed, with open eyes and at the time when they took the loan, the originals bear their signatures. The Clerk of LIC who was called from LIC produced documents showing that the complainants had affixed their signatures. The counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, out of 10 insurance policies, seven had lapsed. The complainants did not pay the further premiums. Under these circumstances, the Bank was well within its right to get those policies surrendered. 8. We find force in her arguments, in a measure. The notice dated 17.08.2006, is crucial/main pillar, the foundation on which the entire case rests. It surpasses the other relevant facts. The petitioner - Bank has committed an egregious mistake in not waiting for one full month. The complainants had no chance to pay the amount within one month. The policies were already surrendered. For all these reasons, this piece of evidence gets preponderance over all the submissions made by the counsel for the OP. This also, clearly goes to show the negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the petitioner-Bank. The attitude of the authorities adds a shocking dimension to the situation. They are contesting this case without realizing that they had committed a flagrant mistake. The higher authorities are prone to turn a Nelson’s eye to indiscipline in the branches rather taking the bull by horns. The petitioner is spending/wasting the so-called public money on this frivolous case but did not take any action against those who could not wait for a month of notice. They are liable to pay compensation to the complainants. The District Forum and State Commission have granted the value of the policies in favour of the complainants which were allegedly surrendered. The District Forum was pleased to note :- “If the payment of aforesaid policies would not have been received, then, complainants would have received the whole amount of around Rs.5,50,000/- of the aforesaid policies because Policy No. 250409571 was amounting to Rs.1,20,222/- which was of 10.10.1990 policy No.251588505 amounting of Rs.1,50,000/- was of 28.12.1997 at policy No.251588504 was amounting to Rs.1,50,000/- which was of 28.12.1997, payment of the same was received to the complainants along with all the benefits but opposite parties while adopting unfair trade practice have obtained the payment while surrendering the policies prior to the time period of payment mentioned in notice which clearly shows the unfair trade practice of opposite parties. The amount of total of Rs.56,426/- is found to be included in the aforesaid three policies by which it is clear that the complainants suffered the loss of around Five Lac rupees and responsibility of the payment of the same with the opposite parties”. 9. However, it is made clear that we modify the orders passed by both the fora. The complainants in RP No.3483 of 2013 (Complaint Case No.10/07) would get total compensation in the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- only, with interest @ 9% p.a., instead of 12% p.a., for harassment and mental agony. Costs of the case, the total amount payable to the complainants would be Rs.1,00,000/-. Other benefits are hereby deleted in the said case. 10. In Case No.3484 of 2013 (CC No.11/07), also, the orders passed by the fora below are modified and the complainants will get compensation in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- only, with interest @ 9% p.a, from the date of filing of the complaint, till the date of actual payment. The revision petitions stand partly allowed. |