In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,

Murshidabad at Berhampore.

Case No. CC/82/2014

Date of filing: 27/06/2014                                                                    Date of Final Order: 31/08/2015

 Nurul Islam S/O-Munshi Nur Muhammad,

 Pakurdia, P.O.- Faridpur. P.S.- Jalangi.

 Dist- Murshidabad …………………………………………………………………………………...Complainant                   

                                                  -Vs-

1). Manager United Bank of India. Jalangi Branch,

 P.S.- Jalangi, Dist. Murshidabad.

2). Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India,

Islampur ,Dist.- Murshidabad.…………………………………………………………….   Opposite Party

Mr.Siddhartha  Sankar Dhar, Ld. Advocate…………………………………for the Complainant.

Mr.Subhash Saha, Ld. Advocate…………………………………………………for the Opposite Party No.1.

Mr.Saugata Biswas, Ld. Advocate………………………………………………for the Opposite Party No.2.

                      Present:   Hon’ble President, Anupam Bhattacharyya.           

                                       Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.           

                                                     FINAL ORDER

Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Member:

                The simple version of this complainant as enumerated in the complaint is that one Nurul Islam Mondal insured his life before OP No.2 being Policy No. 421279492, namely Jeevan Sanchay Plan, policy period was from 28.12.98 to 28.12.2013. That the complainant took a loan from the opposite party No.1 being Loan Account No.0231302900007 so the policy was assigned to OP No.1 Bank. The complainant paid all the dues and the opposite party No.1 issued no dues certificate. The complainant mortgaged some property for his loan and after repayment of such loan the banking authority returned back the deeds but the policy certificate was not returned. So the complainant several times requested the opposite party to return the policy certificate but of no result. On 12.02.2014 the opposite party No.2 by a letter stated this complainant that as policy certificate remains assigned with the opposite party No.1 so they are unable to pay the amount. Therefore the complainant realized that the policy has not been reassigned and went to the bank with the letter and the Branch Manager wrote a comment “Reassigned by the Bank” without any signature. Then the complainant took the policy status from LICI which spoke that the policy amount of Rs. 1,35,625/- was sent to the account of Opposite Party No.1 on 01.03.2014. The Opposite Party No.1 neither returned back the policy nor paid the policy amount but hold the amount illegally so the OP No.1 is deficient in providing service to this complainant for which the complainant filed the instant case praying a direction upon the OP No.1 to pay sum of Rs.1,35,625/- including interest @12% p.a. and a sum of Rs.50,000/- for mental pain and agony. 

            The OP No.2 appeared by its agent and filed written version on 29.10.2014 by Administrative Officer Tushar Kanti Basak and denied the allegation as leveled against him. He averred that he discharged its liability on 01.03.2014 by depositing the same of Rs.1,35,625/- to the OP No.1 as because the policy was assigned to the OP NO.1 and as such OP No.1 is fully liable to pay the such sum of Rs.1,35,625/- to the complainant.  He further averred that the complainant has no claim against the OP No.2 i.e. LICI so the suit is liable to be dismissed against the OP No.2.

              After receiving notice OP No.1 appeared by its agent who in his turn filed numerous petitions praying time for filling written version. That on 29.04.2015 the OP No.1 filed agent hazira but no written version filed till date so the proceeding run ex-parte against the OP No.1. Lastly on 12.5.2015 the OP No.1 filed written version by its Manager and denied the allegation of the complainant and submitted that the complainant being a government employee was a borrower under  the scheme UNITED KRISHI SAHAYAK YOJANA for purchasing a tractor in the year 2004. Against the loan amount of Rs.4,00,000/- some landed property was mortgaged and RIP, LICI policy was lien and assigned respectively. The complainant started to make default in payment of EMI from the month of August ,2008 and since then he became permanent defaulter of his loan amount. Due to non transaction of loan account the same had been classified as NPA on 31.05.2011 and on that date the outstanding balance was Rs.2,19,584/-. Due to NPA account booked interest charged. Several requests were made by the complainant to regularize the account but he did not paid any heed. Subsequently the complainant made a compromise proposal to this OP. At  the time of settlement, the complainant was informed about total outstanding balance of Rs.2,19,584/-. The complainant acknowledging the said amount deposited a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and gave consent to adjust the matured amount of LICI policy. On this understanding NOC was given to complainant.  On subsequent occasion the matured amount of LICI policy was transferred to this OP by OP No.2. In this process this OP has sustained a loss of Rs.27,243.91/- due acceptance of settlement proposal of the complainant. OP has every right to set off credit balance of security with debit balance of the same borrower after recalling the dues and the reassignment writing cannot be put in a document other than policy certificate and it must be in a specific format.  This complainant is not at all entitled to get matured value of LICI policy as that was adjusted with the outstanding balance of the complainant for consequential interest thereupon and incidental bank charge for the settlement proceeding. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

           That on 29.04.2015 the complainant filed evidence on affidavit in which he averred everything that he stated in the petition of complaint and in para 10 he also stated that the OP No.1 neither returned back the policy nor paid the amount as received from the OP No.2 so the OP No.1 is deficient in providing service to this complainant for which this complainant bound to file this case.         

         The complainant in his argument demanded the matured amount which the OP No.1 received from the OP No.2 including interest @ 12% p.a. thereon since the receiving and compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The argument as advanced by the agent of the OP No.1 heard, he averred that the matured value of the policy of the complainant adjusted with loan and interest and there is no question of reassigned and the story of reassigned is concocted one. The agent of the OP No.2 argued that the Insurance company already remitted there liability by paying the matured amount to OP No.1 as the Insurance policy was assigned to the OP No.1. 

From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1).    Whether the Complainant ‘Nurul Hasan’ Consumer of the opposite party?

2).    Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3). Whether the O.P. carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service          towards the Complainant?

4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISIONS WITH  REASONS

                    In the light of discussions herein above we find that the following issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

  1).Whether the Complainant ‘Nurul Hasan’ is a Consumer of the opposite party?

                  From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein being the customer of OP is entitled to get service from the OPs.

 (2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

                Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Murshidabad and cause of action took place at Jalangi, Murshidabad. The complaint valued at Rs.1,35,625/-+Intt.andRs.50,000/as compensation ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/-limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.            

    (3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

              After perusing the Complaint Petition, Written Versions and Evidence on Affidavit and also the documents as filed by the parties in dispute and hearing the arguments it appears from the Status Report that the Policy being No. 421279492, namely Jeevan Sanchay Plan was issued in the name of the complainant but subsequently it is assigned in the name of OP No.1 as it was mortgaged as lien for getting loan from OP No.1.The complainant took loan from the OP No.1 and deposited deeds and the policy certificate in dispute and after the repayment of loan the OP No.1 returned back the deeds but did not return the  Insurance Policy  for which this complainant filed this complaint before this Forum for redressal and compensation. The policy status report as supplied by the OP No.2 clearly stated that the matured amount of Rs.1,35,625/- has already credited in favour of the OP No.1 as the policy was assigned to the OP No.1 instead of the complainant. The complainant alleged that the OP No.1 getting insured proceeds of the complainant became remained silent instead of crediting it in favour of this complainant. If it is so then the OP No.1 is deficient in providing service to its consumer. It is clear from the documents and averments of the parties that the complainant took loan from the OP No.1 and the said loan has been repaid by him and adjusted on compromise but all the documents that deposited before the OP No.1 as lien has not been returned to this complainant as a consequence the complainant did not get the matured value of the Insurance policy which was assigned in the name of OP No.1.

     It appears from the no due certificate as issued by the OP No.1 dated 6.12.2013 that the outstanding loan A/C has been liquidated by compromise settlement as per available record as on 06.12.2013 and also certified that they have no dues against the said loan & all his paper related to land is returned. There is no mention regarding the return or reassign the LICI policy which was in the custody of the OP No.1. At that time the complainant did not assail to get the LICI policy reassigned but remained silent till the information received from the end of OP No.2  in respect of receiving the policy proceed by the OP No.1. Then he wrote a letter to the OP No.1 on 02.05.2014 stating that the OP No.1 did not reassigned the policy at the utterance of the complainant so he is entitled to get the matured value in his account. But he never wrote any letter to get his LICI policy being reassigned after the settlement of loan on compromise. The story of writing reassigned without signature has no evidentiary value and it is denied by the OP No.1.  

           The case of the complainant is that the complainant took a loan amounting to Rs.400,000/-from the OP No.1 by assigning a few deeds of landed property,  one RIP investment& a LICI Policy and the said loan account was settled on compromise and the OP No.1 bank issued no due certificate  without giving any reflection in  that certificate to the effect that at the time of settlement of the impugned loan account the OP No.1 bank has taken into account the assigned LICI policy of the complainant, scheduled to be matured  on 28.12.2013.

        It is true that in the no due certificate relating to the settlement of the loan account of the complainant has not given any such reflection as to adjustment of the assigned LICI policy of the complainant, matured after issuance of such no due certificate.

     Be that as it may we are of view that the matter is to be taken into consideration very carefully.

    From the loan account statement of the complainant issued by the OP bank it clear that on 06.12.2013 the said loan account was settled by compromise as to 0.00 balance by adjusting Rs.92,649.53 and notional interest of Rs.62,757.38 and reverse interest of Rs.7,462.00 .Thus for this settlement complainant has got the benefit of Rs.1,62,868.91 from his liability to liquidate the loan account for Rs.400,000.00.

    Now the complainant is claiming the matured value of his assigned LICI policy of Rs.135,625.00 being not reflected in the no due certificate.

     The settled principle of law is that the complainant is to prove his case on his own leg without taking the advantage of weakness of the opponent case.

       Further, the instant LICI policy was assigned to the OP bank as security for the loan taken by the complainant and the said loan was settled without reassigning the same in favour of the complainant and also considering the financial loss of Rs.162868.91 of the OP bank, for the settlement of the loan amount of Rs.400,000.00 as discussed above we find that it is quite usual to consider the matured amount of the said assigned LICI policy for the purpose of settlement of said loan account.    

           Once a valuable security is assigned in the name of OP No.1 bank, it is the property of the bank till it is reassigned. According to version of the answering OP No.1 the RIP investment of the complainant was adjusted in the loan account on 26.3.2012 and the premium proceed of the LICI policy was taken into consideration while adjusting the balance amount and notional interest.

        The Transactions Inquiry of loan account of the complainant reflects that a sum of Rs.92649.53 has adjusted for liquidating the loan amount along with interest on compromise in between the parties on 6.12.2013 but the premium proceed of Rs.135625.00 is used to liquidate the same. If for the sake of argument the notional interest during the period of NPA has waived to come into compromise then the  premium proceed of Rs.135625.00 should not be totally used to discharge the financial liability of Rs.92649.53. As such the complainant is entitled to get the balance amount of Rs.42975.47 which is the difference of Rs.135625.00 & Rs.92649.53.

       On the basis of above discussion we may safely conclude that the OP No.1 compromised the loan amount including interest taking the premium proceeds into consideration but it is not clear to this complainant. And no compromise petition as well as solenama was produced by the parties before us to make it clear.  The OP No.2 being the insurance company discharged his liability by crediting the policy proceed to the OP No.1 to whom the complainant assigned during the period of taking loan. So the OP No.2 is no way deficient in providing service to the complainant. As such the complainant is entitled to get only a sum of Rs.42975.00 which is difference of Rs.135625.00 & Rs.92649.53 from the OP No.1.   

4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

            The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant could able to prove his case. So, the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to refund a sum of Rs. 42975.00 to the Complainant.

                                                                        ORDER

          Hence, it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest in part against the Opposite Party No.1 without litigation cost. The OP No.2 is exonerated from his liability.

                   We, therefore, allow the complaint in part and Opposite Party No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.42975.00 in favour of the complainant within a period of 45 days from the date of order.

           No other reliefs are awarded to the complainant for harassment and mental agony.

            At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party No.1 shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the  Consumer legal Aid Account.

Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary Post for information & necessary action.

  Dictated and corrected by me.

                   Member,                                                                      President,

   District Consumer Disputes                                          District Consumer Disputes                                                              Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.                                 Redressal Forum, Murshidabad.