BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, VELLORE DISTRICT AT VELLORE. PRESENT: THIRU. A. SAMPATH, B.A., B.L., PRESIDENT TMT. G. MALARVIZHI, B.E. MEMBER – I THIRU. K. DHAYALAMURTHI,B.SC. MEMBER – II CC.44 / 2002 MONDAY THE 13th DAY OF DECEMBER 2010. S. Meenakshi, W/o. Late. Siva, No.19/11, Punniyakotty Nagar, Salavanpet, Vellore. … Complainant. - Vs – The Special Officer, Vellore Co-op. Building Society Ltd., No.9. 1st Cross Street, Bishop David Nagar, Vellore -1. … Opposite party. . . . . This petition coming on for final hearing before us on 29.11.2010, in the presence of Thiru.J.Venkatramani, Advocate for the complainant and Thiru. E. Rathinavelu, Advocate for the opposite party and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Forum made the following: O R D E R Pronounced by Thiru. A. Sampath, President of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Vellore District. 1. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant is the wife of late Siva who is a member obtained loan for the construction of house vide loan No.85/2000-2001 M.I.G. Group membership No.4410 amount Rs.1,50,000/- from the opposite party namely Vellore Co-operative Building Society Limited, Vellore. The complainant husband late Siva employed as a Mechanic in the Vellore Co-operative Printing work, Vellore has borrowed a amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the opposite party for the construction of house at Door No.11, Punniyakotti Nagar, Salavanpet, Vellore. The loan was sanctioned with the condition of monthly instalment for 15 years. The borrower Siva has to take a premium under the Group Insurance Scheme sponsored by the LIC of India. As per the terms and conditions of the scheme the borrower has to take the Group Insurance Scheme and pay the amount. The said Siva is the borrower and his son Shankar is the surety. Both of them have executed the necessary bond. The said Sankar is unemployed during 2000 and he was asked to sign just as a surety only. As per the scheme the borrower has to take a policy and pay the premium. By chance the borrower happen to die during the pendency of the loan, the LIC will pay the balance amount on the death of the borrower. The premium is compulsory and the amount will be paid by the opposite party while the loan is sanctioned. Only after the premium is paid the remaining amount will be paid by the society to the borrower. 2. On 3.8.00 the said Siva died leaving the complainant as his heir. The opposite party initially obtained signatures from the complainant stating that she need not pay the remaining instalment since after the death of the borrower the amount will be paid by the Group Insurance Scheme, LIC. The complainant and his son Shankar have visited the opposite party for the release of the document to enjoy the property by their own right. During the year 2002 the Special Officer of the opposite party has requested the complainant to pay the remaining balance of instalments for the loan granted to her husband by the building society. He has informed the complainant that by mistake the signature of Shankar was obtained in the Group Insurance Scheme Form and hence the LIC has refused to pay the amount even after the death of Siva the borrower of the loan. The complainant has informed the Higher officials regarding the mistake committed by the staff of the society for which the complainant should not be penalized. The officials of the opposite party has altered the loan application as if the said Shankar was employed and drawing more salary than Siva. In fact Shankar was unemployed during the sanction of the loan and only Siva a permanent employee of the printing press. On 21.5.02 she was sent a legal notice through her Advocate to the opposite party but the reply was not satisfactory. The deficiency was committed by the opposite party. She prayed for directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- for the deficiency in service and to pay interest @ 25% p.a. from the day till the entire amount are realized and to pay the cost of this proceedings of Rs.1500/- 3. The averments in the opposite party is as follows; The complaint for compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limini with costs. Various allegations in the complaint are not true and correct. They have no factual or legal basis and are imaginations of the complainant. The Complainant’s husband Siva and her son Shankar have borrowed the loan, duly sanctioned and have executed the mortgage deed in favour of the society. Shankar being a Co-Mortgagor is liable to pay the dues to the society, personally and out of the mortgaged house and out of the estate of deceased Siva. There is no negligence, or faults or latches or deficiency in service either in granting the loan or in sending group insurance form etc. to LIC. In short there is no fault of any kind, on the society. As per the group insurance scheme and rules and regulations regarding this scheme and the society rules only the member who has higher income and lesser age has to be made a policy holder in the group insurance scheme. In fact there is specific circular orders dt. 12.4.99 issued by co-op. Federation Madras, directing that higher income member based on his age should be joined in the scheme and not the lower income members and not the older members. The lower income member has to be excluded from the purview of the insurance scheme. Accordingly in this case the deceased Siva, the aged 53 whose income stated by him as Rs.4504/- per month, could not be made the insurance policy holder, for his son’s income is stated to be by himself Rs.7000/- p.m. So son being the highest income earner, aged 27 years, alone, was admitted in the group insurance records. The son has given valid certificate for his monthly incomes. Considering all these and properly, the son alone was made a policy holder. By law and rules the father could not be added in the policy. It is also incorrect to say that the borrower has to take Insurance. As per rules and stipulations who is lesser in age and who is more income earner alone has to be made a party to the Insurance Policy. The allegations in para-2 of the complainant are all false. The Group Insurance is not compulsory for the borrower. Where surety is alive and where he alone is the policy holder, the death of the borrower will not make the LIC liable to pay the insured amount. The allegations in para-3 of the complaint are all false. It is wrong to say that Siva died on 3.8.00. He died on 23.5.01, as revealed by the letter of complainant. It is false to allege that her signature were obtained and that she was informed that LIC will pay the dues. At no point of time her signature was obtained. Nor there any necessity for her signature. It is incorrect to allege that she was informed that by mistake Shanker’s signature was taken. There is no mistake the staff of the society. The allegations against the higher officials are false. The allegations in para-4 of the complaint are not true. To the notice proper reply was given. Rules were followed. So no amount could be paid by LIC since Shankar is one of the mortgagors and policyholder and being alive. There is no deficiency of service or fault on the part of the opposite party. Therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with the cost. 4. Now the points for consideration are: (a) Whether there is any deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party ? (b) Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs asked for?. 5. Ex.A1 to ExA3 were marked on the side of the complainant and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked on the side of the opposite party. Proof affidavit of the complainant and Proof affidavit of the opposite party have been filed. No oral evidence let in by either side. 6. POINT NO. (a): - It is admitted facts of the parties that the complainant’s husband late Siva who is a member obtained a loan for the construction of his house at Door No.11, Punniyakotti Nagar, Salvanpet, Vellore vide loan No.4410, Rs.1,50,000/- from the opposite party namely Vellore Co-operative Building Society Limited, Vellore The said loan was sanctioned with the condition of monthly instalment for 15 years. 7. The complainant contended that the complainant’s husband is the borrower and his son Shankar is the surety in the said loan. As per the Group Insurance Scheme the borrower has to take a policy and pay the premium. By chance the borrower happen to die during the pendency of the loan, the LIC will pay the balance amount on the death of the borrower. The complainant’s husband Siva was died on 3.8.00. The opposite party initially obtained signatures from the complainant stating that she need not pay the remaining instalment since after the death of the borrower the amount will be paid by the Group Insurance Scheme, LIC. But, during the year 2002 the Special officer of the opposite party has requested the complainant to pay the remaining balance of instalments for the loan granted to her husband by the building society. The opposite party informed the complainant that by mistake the signature of Shankar was obtained in the Group Insurance Scheme Form and the LIC has refused to pay the balance amount even after the death of Siva, hence the opposite party has committed deficiency in service. 8. The opposite party contented that the complainant’s husband Siva and her son Shankar have borrowed the loan from opposite party and they executed the mortgage deed in favour of the society, Shankar being a Co-mortgagor is liable to pay the dues to the society, out of the mortgaged house and out of the estate of deceased Siva. Under the Group Insurance Scheme, as per the society rule, only the member who has higher income and lesser age has to be made a policy holder. The lower income member has to be excluded from the purview of the insurance scheme. Accordingly in this case the deceased Siva, aged 53 whose income stated by him as Rs.4504/- per month, could not be made the insurance policy holder. But his son’s income is stated to be by himself Rs.7000/- p.m., so son being the highest income earner, aged about 27 years, alone was admitted in the group insurance records. Where surety is alive and where he alone is the policy holder, the death of the borrower will not make to pay the insured amount. Therefore, there is no negligence or deficiency in service in granting the loan or in sending group insurance form etc. to LIC. 9. It is admitted fact that as per letter Ex.A1 & Ex.A2 dt. 3.8.00 the above said loan was sanctioned by the opposite party with the conditions to the complainant’s husband Thiru.S.Siva. The conditions are mentioned in the 2nd page of the Ex.A1 & Ex.B2. The conditions No.8 & 9 read as follows: $hkPd;jhuh; jpU.v!;.rA;fh;, mth;fshy; FG mog;gilapyhd jpl;lj;jpd; fPH; juBtz;oa gotj;ij g{h;j;jp bra;J Kjy; jtiz;j bjhiff;fhd gl;Lthlh Bfhhpf;ifa[ld; mDg;gg;glBtz;Lk;. cWg;gpdh; jd;Dila kfd; v!;.rA;fh; cld; Brh;e;J mlkhdk; vGjp juBtz;Lk;. The complainant had also admitted in her proof affidavit that her husband Siva is the borrower and his son Shankar is the surety. Both of them have executed the necessary bond. According to the complainant as per terms and conditions of the scheme the borrower has to take the Group Insurance Scheme and pay the premium amount. Sankar is unemployed during 2000 and he was asked sign just as surety only. The contention of the opposite party that the Group Insurance is not compulsory to the borrower. As per the Group Insurance Scheme and the society rules only the member who has higher income and lesser age has to be made a policy holder in the group insurance scheme. Accordingly, the deceased Siva, the aged 53 whose income stated by him as Rs.4504/- p.m. could not be made the insurance policy holder and his son’s income is stated to be by himself Rs.7000/- So son being the highest income earner, aged 27 years, alone was admitted in the group insurance records. Where surety is alive and where he alone is the policy holder, the death of the borrower will not made the LIC liable to pay the insured amount. 10. During the arguments, the learned counsel for the opposite party brought to the notice before this Forum about the applications of Thiru.Siva and Thiur.Shankar to become a member in the opposite party’s society. From the perusal of the said applications, it is seen that the deceased Thiru.Siva the aged 53 whose income stated by him and his son’s income is stated to be by himself Rs.7000/- and his age 27. Therefore, the late Siva’s son being the highest income earner, aged 27 years alone was admitted in the Group Insurance Scheme. From the perusal of Ex.B3, Group Insurance Scheme, the application-cum-health declaration, it is clearly mentioned that the complainant’s husband Siva is a borrower and his son Shankar is guarantor. Further Thiru.A.Shankar has made a declaration that the basis for the Insurance on my life under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Housing Society, Limited, Group Insurance Scheme and he acknowledge having read and understood the Rules which describe the terms of the Group Insurance Scheme arranged with Life Insurance Corporation of India to provide benefits in the event of my death for the sole purpose of liquidating my outstanding indebtedness to the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Housing Society Limited. He now apply for admission as a member of the scheme. 11. According to the opposite party that, there is a specific circular / orders, Ex.B4, dt.12.4.99 issued by Co-operative Federation, Madras directing that higher income member based on his age should be joined in the scheme and not the lower income members and not the older members. From the perusal of Ex.B4 Circular, it is seen that the lower income member has to be excluded from the purview of he insurance scheme. The late Siva’s son has also given validity certificate for his monthly income. Accordingly, Thiru. Siva’s son being the higher income earner aged 27 years alone was admitted in the Group Insurance records. The Ex.B4, dt. 12.4.99 circular issued by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Housing Federation Limited, it read as follows: Rw;wwpf;if bghUs;: jkpH;ehL Tl;Lwt[ tPl;L trjp nizak; - FGf;fhg;g[Wjpj; jpl;lk; - FGf;fhg;gPl;Lg;gad; bgWtJ – Bfhhpf;iffs; nizaj;jpw;F mDg;gg;gLk;BghJ filgpof;fg;gl Btz;oa tHpKiwfs; - bjhlh;ghf. 1. FHf;fhg;gPl;Lj; jpl;lj;jpy; Brh;f;fg;gLk; cWg;gpdh; jFjpfs;: m. flid jpUg;gpr; brYj;j cWg;gpdh; tUkhdk; my;yJ mtUila FLk;g tUkhdk; fzf;fplg;gLk;BghJ, cWg;gpdh; my;yJ $hkPd;jhuh; nth;fspy; vtuJ tUkhdk; mjpfkhd cs;sBjh, mtUila tajpd; mog;gilapy; (18 taJ Kjy; 58 taJ tiu) flid jpUg;gpr; brYj;Jk; fhy mst[ eph;zapf;fg;gl;L FGf;fhg;g[Wjpj;jpl;lj;jpy; mth; Brh;f;fg;gl Btz;Lk;. M. cWg;gpdh; tUkhdk; VJk; ny;yhky; kfsPuhf nUf;Fk; jUzj;jpy; mthpd; fzth; tUkhdk; my;yJ taJ te;j kfd;, kfs; tUkhdk; fld; jtizia brYj;j fzf;fpy; vLf;fg;gLk;BghJ mt;thuhdtiu $hkPd;jhuuhf (Guarantor) nj;jpl;lj;jpy; Brh;f;f Btz;Lk;. 2. FGf;fhg;gPl;Lj; bjhif bgw Bfhhpf;iffs; mDg;gg;gLk;BghJ ftdpf;fg;gl Btz;oait: m. fhg;gPl;Lj; jpl;lj;jpy; Brh;f;fg;gl;Ls;s cWg;gpdh; kl;LBk nj;jpl;lj;jpd; FGf;fhg;gPl;L bjhifia bgw jFjp cilath;. flid jpUg;gp brYj;j $hkPd;jhuh; tUkhdk; fzf;fplg;gl;L mtiu fhg;gPl;Lj; jpl;lj;jpYk; Brh;f;fg;gl;oUf;Fk; epiyapy; cWg;gpdh; nwe;Jtpl;lhy; flid NL bra;a Bfhhp rpy Kjd;ikr; rA;fA;fs; Bfhhpf;iffis mDg;gp tUfpd;wd. nJ tpjpKiwfl;F Vw;g[ilajy;y. mt;thwhd Bfhg;g[fis fld; bgah;khww;wk; Bfhhp mjw;fhd jfty;fis nizaj;jpw;F mDg;gp, thhpRjhuhpd; bgaUf;F flid khw;wk; bra;Jbfhs;s Btz;Lk;. fhg;gPl;Lj; jpl;lj;jpy; Brh;f;fg;gl;Ls;sth;. bgaiu ftdKld; fld; mDkjp cj;jput[ gotj;;;jpy; Fwpg;gpl Btz;Lk;. Therefore, it is clear that only the member who has higher income and lesser age has to be made a policy holder in the group insurance scheme. The lower income member has to be excluded from the purview of the insurance scheme. Based on the said circular issued by the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Housing Federation Limited, and the rules and regulations of the Group Insurance Scheme, at the time of receiving the 1st installment of that loan Thiru.Siva’s son, Thiru.A.Shankar who is a guarantor in the said loan, being the highest income earner, aged 27 years alone was admitted in the Group Insurance Scheme by the opposite party. The opposite party has sent a reply letter Ex.B1, dt. 23.1.02 to the complainant stated that as per the rules and regulations of the Group Insurance Scheme and the no amount could not be paid by the LIC, since the guarantor Thiru.Shankar is one of the Mortgagor and policy holder and being alive. Therefore the contention of the opposite party that where surety is alive and where he alone is the policy holder, the death of the borrower will not made the LIC liable to pay the insured amount is acceptable. Hence there is no mistake the staff of the society. 12. Hence, taking all the above facts into consideration from the contention in the complaint and the counter, as well as proof affidavit of the both the parties, and from the documents Ex.A1 to A3 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein. Hence we answer this point (a) as against the complainants herein. 13. POINT NO : (b) In view of our findings on point (a), since, we have come to the conclusion that the complainant herein has not clearly proved the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party herein. We have also come to the conclusion that the complainant is not at all entitled to any relief asked for by him, in this complaint. Hence we answer this point (b) also as against the complainant herein. 14. In the result this complaint is dismissed. No costs. Dictated to the Steno-typist and transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by the President, in Open Forum, this the 13th day of December 2010. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT. List of Documents: Complainant’s Exhibits: Ex.A1 - 3.8.00 - X-copy of Loan grant order. Ex.A2- 21.5.02 - X-copy of Notice sent to opp party. Ex.A3- 3.6.02 - X-copy of Reply notice. Opposite party’s Exhibits: Ex.B1- 23.1.2002 - X-copy of reply notice. Ex.B2- 3.8.00 - X-copy of loan sanction order. Ex.B3- -- - X-copy of Group Insurance Scheme Application. Ex.B4- 12.4.99 - X-copy of Circular order. MEMBER-I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
| | [ Hon'ble Tmt G.Malarvizhi, B.E] MEMBER[ Hon'ble Thiru A.Sampath, B.A., B.L] PRESIDENT[ Hon'ble Tr K.Dhayalamurthy, Bsc] MEMBER | | 
