Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1157/2010

Dr. M.C. Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. GIC Housing Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

24 Nov 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/1157/10                            Dated:

In the matter of:

Dr. M.C Gupta,

S/o late Sh. Y.R Gupta,

R/o 25/39, 1^st Floor, West Patel Nagar,

New Delhi

……..COMPLAINANT

      

VERSUS

1. GIC Housing Finance Ltd.,

3^rd Floor, Universal Insurance Building,

Sir PM Road Fort, Mumbai-400001

 

2. GIC Housing Finance Ltd.,

9G & H, Vandan Building, 9^th Floor,

Connaught Place, 11, Tolstoy Marg,

New Delhi-110001

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

              

The short complaint of deficiency on the part of OP is that complainant in order to take a housing loan from OP assigned 3 money back LIC policies with OP. One of the policy bearing no.330048079, became eligible for survival benefit of Rs.20,000/- and LIC paid this benefit to OP vide cheque no.0643142 dated 28.01.03. This cheque was encashed by OP, but the money was not remitted to account of complainant. These facts came to knowledge of complainant subsequently who took up the matter with OP. OP admitted the facts and stated that since name of complainant did not match with name on cheque they kept the money undisbursed. Nevertheless, in 2007, the OP gave this money to complainant but without interest from 28.01.03 till date of payment on 04.01.10. He accepted the payment without prejudice to his right.

The Complainant is alleging deficiency for this extent. The OP has filed a sketchy reply with no legal substance. In our view, it was delay of OP to inform the complainant of receiving by it of survival benefit, as they alone had the policy and got the benefit. The question of identity was not in issue. The OP could have raised the name mismatch with complainant on referral by Bank. The OP clearly committed deficiency in services on this score and further compounded it by returning it after 7 years without interest. The complaint is not time barred as it was obligation of OP to credit account of complainant which it never did and cause of action continued. We hold OP guilty of deficiency and direct it to pay interest @ 7 ½  % on the sum of Rs.20,000/- from 28.01.03 till date of payment on 04.01.10, and also pay on the interest amount an interest of 6% from 04.01.10 till payment under this order.

We also award compensation of Rs.15,000/- with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- for this litigation since last 5 years.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 24.11.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER