Delhi

New Delhi

CC/882/2009

Raj Sudha Tower Pvt.Ltd. & Anr. - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. The India Bank ARM Branch - Opp.Party(s)

25 Aug 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/882/09                                                                                                                                                                                Dated:

In the matter of:

1. Mrs. Raj Sudha Towers (P) Ltd.,
2. Mr. Rajender Jaina,
3. Mr. Rahul Jaina
4. Ms. Shradha Jaina alias Shalu Jain
5. Mrs. Sudha Jaina

All R/o N-25A, C.P, New Delhi-110001

……..COMPLAINANTS

       

VERSUS

1. The Indian Bank, ARM Branch,

        Through AGM, UGF, World Trade Centre,      Babar Road, New Delhi-110001

 

2. The Chief Manager,

        Indian Bank, West Patel Nagar, Delhi

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER (Oral)

Date of Arguments: 25.08.2015

Member: Ritu Garodia

Present:    Ld. Counsel for Complainant

                Mr. Abhinav, Proxy Counsel for OP1.    

                None for OP2.

                Arguments head at length.

               

The short facts of the complaint are that complainant was having overdraft account with OP1. He has deposited LIC policy. The details of the policy are as follow:

S.No.	Policy no.	Amount	In name of
	50215421	Rs.75,000/-	Rajender Jaina
	50215426	Rs.75,000/-	Rajender Jaina
	50215425	Rs.75,000/-	Rahul Jaina
	50215420	Rs.75,000/-	Km. Shalu Jaina
	50215403	Rs.35,000/-	Sudha Jain

 

OP Bank had acknowledge receipt of policy vide letter dated 20.12.1984, Complainant seek return of policy documents and hence complaint was filed.

OP in its reply has stated that a compromise has been arrived between parties and original paper has been renewed. However, no issue was raised regarding LIC policy. OPs are unable to find LIC policy and wrote enquiry letter to LIC. LIC has sent status report vide letter dated 18.12.12. OP further refuted the policies as being in the name of minor which therefore could not be assigned by Bank.

After considering the arguments, and perusal of record, the acknowledgment by OP bank regarding LIC policy dated 20.12.1984, has not been refuted by bank in any of pleadings. The said letter contained letter head of OP bank and states that “Certified that the following original documents have been despoiled with us as security for the overdraft limit of Rs.20 lakhs sanctioned to M/s. Raj Sudha Towers (P) Ltd. on 19.12.84.”

1. Life Policy Nos. 501215421, 50215426, 50215425, 50215420 each for Rs.75,000/-.
2. Life policy for Rs.35,000/- in name of Mrs. Sudha Jain Nos.50215403.
3. Lease agreement for plot no. 18 at community centre Wazirpur, purchased by Lord Builders.

 

 As bank has acknowledged the receipt of policy, hence it is directed to return original policy to Complainant. If OP bank is unable to locate the original policy, a certificate by OP bank acknowledging the loss of originals be provided to Complainant. OP bank is directed to provide every assistance to Complainant in the form of documents and certificates in getting maturity amount of policy from LIC. We also award a compensation for Rs.30,000/- for gross negligence, in action and passivity in losing the original documents entrusted to OP bank and Rs.10,000/- for litigation expenses.

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 25.08.2015.

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER