DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.                                                              

                                                Complaint No.  607

                                                Instituted on:    12.10.2016

                                                Decided on:       13.02.2017

Gobind Singh son of Darshan Singh R/O Village Kanakwal, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

1.     State Bank of India, Branch Patiala Road, Sunam, through its Branch Manager, Distt. Sangrur.

2.     Atul Garg, Branch Manger, State Bank of India, Branch Patiala Road, Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

3.     Ajay Pal Singh Rajput, Agriculture Field Officer, State Bank of India, Branch Patiala Road, Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri G.P.Sharma, Advocate.

For OPs                    :       Shri Ashok Goyal, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Gobind Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainant is an agriculturist and is very less educated person and as such he took agriculture loan from the OP number 1 under account number 10658531621 through OPs number 2 and 3 in the month of July, 2016.  But the grievance of the complainant is that the Ops number 2 and 3 asked the complainant to invest Rs.30,000/- in the shape of FDR in the bank in lieu of sanctioning of the loan, as such the OPs number 2 and 3 got signed various documents.  But, later on the complainant came to know that the OPs number 2 and 3 had issued the said amount of Rs.30,000/- in the insurance policy for the period of 10 years, as such, the complainant approached the OPs for refund of the amount, but all in vain despite serving of legal notice upon the OPs. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Ops, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay him an account of Rs.85,000/- on account of mental agony and harassment and Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by OPs, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the complainant is estopped by his own conduct from filing the complaint, that the complainant has no locus standi and cause of action and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant took the loan as well as the insurance policy of Rs.30,000/- from SBI Life Insurance Company Limited and before issuing the policy all the terms and conditions were explained to him.  Further on 24.7.2016 pre issue call was made to the complainant verifying his particulars.  It is further stated that after issuance of the policy the complainant asked for cancellation of the policy and the same was cancelled, but the complainant was asked to return the original policy, which he showed his inability to return the same and assured that he will return the same after receiving the same from the post office and in the alternative he will furnish duly sworn affidavit that policy is not in his possession.   It is further averred that on information received by the Op that the original policy reached in the company, the hold imposed for withdrawal of amount was uplifted by the Op and the complainant was informed that he can withdraw the amount of policy from his account at any time.  As such, the complainant has not suffered any mental tension etc and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied as all the documents relating to the insurance policy were read over and explained to the complainant.

3.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of passbook, Ex.C-2 copy of jamabandi, Ex.C-3 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-6 copies of postal receipts, Ex.C-7 copy of letter, Ex.C-8 affidavit and Ex.C-9 affidavit and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs have produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of statement of account, Ex.OP-3 copy of purchase policy, Ex.OP-4 copy of voucher, Ex.OP-5 copy of complaint dated 10.8.2016, Ex.OP-6 copy of letter, Ex.OP-7 copy of reply of notice, Ex.OP-8 original RC and closed evidence.

4.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

5.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant took the loan as well as the insurance policy bearing number 10658531621 from the OPs for Rs.30,000/-.  But,  in the present case the grievance of the complainant is that the Ops wrongly issued the policy for Rs.30,000/- whereas the amount was meant for making the FDR.   Further grievance of the complainant is that the same was never refunded to him despite approaching the OPs so many times for the same.  On the other hand, the stand of the Ops is that after receipt of the request for cancellation of the policy in question, the same was immediately cancelled and the complainant was asked to deposit the original policy and as such, the policy in question was received by the OP from the postal authorities undelivered to the complainant, as such, the amount of Rs.30,511/- was immediately credited in the account of the complainant on 14.09.2016, as is evident from the copy of passbook of the complainant, which is on record as Ex.C-1.  But the present complaint has been filed by the complainant on 12.10.2016.  The complainant has also produced on record the copy of legal notice dated 4.10.2016 Ex.C-3 served upon the OPs regarding non refund of the amount of Rs.30,000/-.  As such, we feel that the complainant without checking his account got served the legal notice and filed the present complaint and created undesired litigation with the Ops.  As such, we feel that since the amount of Rs.30,000/- had already been credited in the account of the complainant on 14.09.2016, whereas the present complaint has been filed on 12.10.2016, after a period of about one month, we feel that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has also suppressed the material facts.  Accordingly, we feel that the complaint carries no water and the same deserves to be dismissal.

6.             In view of our above discussion,  we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                February 13, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

                                                              (Sarita Garg)

                                                                Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                Member