1.      Smt. Poly Dey Sarkar,

w/o. late Buddhadev Dey Sarkar,.

2.      Aishi Dey Sarkar,

3.      Ridhe Dey Sankar,

2        & 3 are minor daughters of

lt. Buddhadev Dey Sarkar.

4.      Anupama Dey Sarkar,

s/o. late Gouranga Dey Sarkar,

of 3/12, Kaliprosad Chakraborty Lane, Kadamtala,

P.S. Bantra, District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101.--------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANTS.

-          Versus   -

1.         Sr. Manager,

            United Bank of India,

            Kadamtala Branch,

            33/6/2, L.N. Chakraborty Lane, Kadamtala,

            Howrah – 711101.

2.         The General Manager,

            United Bank of India,

            11, Hemanta Basu Sarani,

            Kolkata – 700001. -------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

      Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.     

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O    R   D    E     R

1.      The complainant namely  Smt. Poly Dey  Sarkar by filing a petition U/S 12 of

he C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended upto date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.P. no. 1, UBI Kadamtala Branch to pay the amount of Rs. 6,76,926/- with interest against death benefit against  the insurance policy no. 434141971  in the bank account of “Aishi Agency” held by the complainant and her husband, Buddhadev Dey Sarkar, since deceased and to issue loan clearance certificate in favour of the petitioner against cash credit loan with other reliefs as compensation and litigation costs.

2.      The brief facts of the case is that the predecessor since deceased of the

complainant namely Smt. Poly Dey Sarkar has a cash credit loan amounting to Rs. 2,35,574/- before the O.P. no. 1 being A/C. no. 0168250300541, customer I.D. 03282346 in the name of Aishi Agency, the sole proprietor  against security deposit of L.I.C.I.  Policy being no. 434171971 by collateral security died on 13-12-2012. Subsequently insurance company paid the death benefit as claimed by the nominee of the deceased husband in the bank account of Aishi Agency. The complainant’s wife of the deceased husband subsequently requested the O.P. no. 1 to deduct the dues against  loan amount from the total death claim policy amount and that to balance amount to be disbursed in the favour of the deceased wife who actually entitled to receive the amount as the deceased has already made nominee on the  dated 12-06-2003 as per record in the LICI policy. The O.P. no. 1 neither released  the balance amount nor issued a clearance certificate to the deceased wife. Finally finding no other alternative the complainant filed this complaint praying for relief. Hence the complaint.   

3.      The o.ps. UBI  in their separate written version are contesting the case contending

interalia that the complaint is baseless, motivated, unwarranted, harassing and defective with  suppressing of material facts. The O.Ps. also opined that the petitioner namely Smt. Poly Dey Sarkar has lost its importance as nominee of the original policy on the date of assignment made in favour of the bank and the O.P. no. 1 has no right to repay the said balance amount in absence of legal heirs of the deceased person ( herein original policy holder ) for which this particular complainant is not entitled to get relief/ return the balance amount as prayed for against which the complaint is liable to be dismissed accordingly.

4.         Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)                    Whether the O.Ps. have negligence in activities and also deficiency

in service by not refunded the claim  amount in due time    ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief and compensation as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.      Both the points are taken up together for consideration. Perused the enclosures

issued by UBI towards sanction of credit facility, policy itself and other photo copies of the relevant documents.

6.      It is admitted facts that the policy holder of LICI since deceased made his nominee

during his life time to Smt. Poly Dey Sarkar, the wife, on the dated 12-06-2003 and accordingly she discharged her duty by encashment the death benefit of the deceased insurance policy no. 434171971 by delegating her authority to the bank official who ( herein the O.P. no. 1 ) by virtue of his own accord liquidated the amount and deducted his ( banks ) dues from  the loan amount against  the total death claim policy amount. It is not a fact that as soon as the nominee assigned the UBI to withdraw the death benefit claim from the LICI on behalf of her, the complainant / nominee / predecessor had ceased all her rights / importance is not true as stated by the O.Ps. on their written version. As per terms and conditions of the LICI the insured person or his nominee can be withdrawn the death benefit of the deceased and accordingly she / nominee vested her power to the O.P. no. 1 to withdraw the full quantum of the insured amount so that the bank authority after deducting his dues can be able to repay the balance amount to the nominee whatever the reasons that have took place. The bank authority herein O.P. no. 1 has no right to withhold the encashed amount as the same amount was not deposited in a regular manner by the deceased but solely encashment/ payment made by the LICI as nominee of the insured amount of his predecessor. The action taken by the O.P. no. 1 is beyond the jurisdiction and without any intimation / officially to the complainant which tantamount gross negligence on the part of the O.Ps.

7.      Now the pertinent question arises how the complainant can be made deprive by

repudiating the claim when she initiated her claim leaving behind her two minor children and old aged mother in law ( age about 72 years ), the O.Ps. UBI have sufficient opportunity to consider the claim because of the fact that the complainant is a lay man / specially a woman. They will not be knowing the conditions of the norms of the bank as they are rural arrears. Therefore, we are of the view that such innocent person shall not be made to suffer only because she has in need of money to livelihood his family leaving behind minor children and old age mother in law.

8.      We have heard counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the evidence on

record submitted by the complainant also corresponding affidavit filed by the Anupama Dey Sarkar, the mother in law of  Smt. Poly Dey Sarkar which is also due considered for reaching a conclusion.

9.      We are therefore of the view that O.Ps. UBI committed gross deficiency in service

in repudiating the bonafide claim of the complainant. They have no way escape from the rigours of law. We have examined the enclosures meticulously, the O.Ps. UBI was thoroughly unjustified in turning a deaf ear to the claim of the complainant. This is a fit case where the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed.

Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  91 of 2013 ( HDF 91 of 2013 )  be  allowed on contest with costs against o.ps.

      The O.P. no. 1  be directed to release the claim amount to the complainant in the tune of Rs 6,76,926/- with  @ 9% p.a. interest from the date of receipt of encash amount from L.I.C.I. within 30 days from the date of this order failing the  whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% interest  p.a.

      The O.P. no. 1 is  further directed to issue the loan clearance certificate in favour of the wife of the deceased against credit loan of Rs. 2,35,574/- within 30 days from the date of this order.  

      The complainant i.e., deceased wife on behalf of others is hereby directed to open an account in her name at the nationalized bank if not opened  earlier and deposit the whole amount so received from the O.P. no. 1.  Smt. Poly Dey Sarkar, wife of the deceased, shall be entitled to the 1/3^rd share of the total amount  and balance  ( 1/3 + 1/3 ) shall  be deposited in a post office in  individual capacity of the minor/s ( i.e., complainant no. 2 & complainant no. 3 ) under monthly income scheme upto the age of 18 years of the minors and the interest so due from  the postal authority on  monthly basis against M.I.S. shall be withdrawn by Smt. Poly Dey Sarkar on behalf of the minors to be incurred for livelihood of her minor children till attending the age of 18 years. The  complainant no. 4 has already relinquished her claim through an affidavit.   

      The O.P. no. 1 do pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- as compensation for the mental pain, agony and prolonged harassment.

      The complainants are further entitled to litigation costs of Rs 5,000/- from the O.Ps.   

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                          (    P. K. Chatterjee)

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                       Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

     (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                               

 Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.