PER SHRI. S.B.DHUMAL - HON’BLE PRESIDENT :
1) In brief consumer dispute is as under –
The Complainants are holding 4 policies of life insurance as under –
a) 900224318 Shri. J.S. Saharia 100,000.00
b) 910756823 Shri. J.S. Saharia 100,000.00
c) 900224454 Smt. Sunita J. Saharia 100,000.00
d) 1111854130 Shri. J.S. Saharia 100,000.00
The Complainants were required to pay a sum of Rs.1,123.90 paise p.m. towards the premium of aforesaid four policies. The Complainants were regularly paying premium of the policies.
2) It is submitted that the Complainants wanted to raise funds to purchase a flat covering an area of 1076 Sq. ft. from M/s. Amatas Co-Op Housing Society, Andheri (W), Mumbai. Therefore, the Complainants initially made an application for loan of Rs.3 Lacs to Opposite Party No.2. The said loan was sanctioned to the Complainants by Opposite Party No.2 on 09/07/1990. In view of increase in the prices of building material, etc. the Complainants made another application to the Opposite Party No.2 for additional loan amount of Rs.2 Lacs and that was also sanctioned on 12/12/1993. The entire loan amount was to be repaid in 22 years by Equated Monthly Installments of Rs.7,195/-.
3) The Complainant is a senior rank officer in the Indian Administrative Service and he was out of India on deputation to United Kingdom for a period from September, 1995 to October, 1996. Before proceedings to U.K. the Complainant gave standing instructions to the Opposite Party No.1 to make payment directly to LIC Housing Finance Ltd., Mumbai. Thereafter again vide letter dtd.19/03/97 similar instructions were given to Opposite Party No.1.
4) It is submitted that since EMI was to be paid with monthly premium on the policies, the two were being paid to Opposite Party No.2 & 3 under instructions to the Opposite Party No.1. The Complainants on return from United Kingdom, were shocked and surprised to find that the Opposite Party No.1, had on some occasions failed to remit the payment of EMI and premiums of aforesaid 4 policies and on some occasions were late in making payment despite their being balance account. Due to the aforesaid fact, the Complainants had to pay additional interest to LICHF on delayed payment of Rs.30,000/- on account of negligence and not following the standing instructions given to Opposite Party No.1. It is alleged by the Complainants that Opposite Party No.2 & 3, did not care to send any reminder or intimation about the lapsing of policy due to delay and non payment of premium and EMI’s. This is a clear case of deficiency on the part of Opposite Party No.1 and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.2 & 3.
5) It is submitted that the Complainant came to know that all the Housing Finance Institutions had lowered the rate of interest on the already borrowed loans. However, LICHF did not reduce the same. After much correspondence and discussion Opposite Party No.2 & 3 waive the penal interest (to some extent) but the interest rate on the loan amount remained the same. After much correspondence and actual visits, Opposite Party No.2 & 3 showed some inclination to reduce the rate of interest to 13.5% p.a. as stated by them in the letter dtd.13/12/1999, but for the period to commence thereafter. It was informed to the Complainant that the Complainant will have to rewrite the loan agreement on the stamp paper of Rs.20/- and will have to pay Rs.4,631/- towards administrative fees and Rs.2,307/- towards processing fees. In fact writing of fresh agreement was not necessary. It is submitted that the Complainant wrote various letters to the Opposite Party and subsequently corporate office of Opposite Party No.2 had given instructions to the Opposite Party No.2 & 3 to waive additional interest of Rs.15,000/-. By letter dtd.17/04/2000, it was informed that an amount of Rs.8,319/- p.m. (on account of EMI and the premiums of 4 policies) was being deposited in Mortgage Suspense Account. There was no notice from LIC Policy Division that risk cover had been taken away as policies were deemed lapsed. The Complainants were taken objection for such unilateral action on the part of LICHF and detail statement of accounts. The 4 policies had been shown as lapsed. The Complainant when came to know about the non-payment of amount, promptly paid a sum of Rs.33,276/- on 30/11/2000 for the missing installments. Then by letter dtd.04/12/2000, Opposite Party No.2 & 3 asked the Complainant to pay interest on late payment of EMI and premiums and handling charges to reduce interest rates. The Complainants thereby were deprived of all the benefits of the insurance policies. Opposite Party No.2 had written letter dtd.10/11/2000 to the guarantors of the Complainants threatened to take legal action, even though Complainants were regular in payment of EMI and premiums.
6) In view of above aforesaid facts the Complainants had filed complaint in Nagpur which was transferred to Mumbai and disposed off vide order dtd.28/03/2007 passed by the Central Mumbai District Consumer Forum. The said order challenged before the Hon’ble State Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission ordered the refilling of the complaint before two appropriate Forums and hence, the Complainant filed this compliant within period of limitation before this Forum. The Complainant has prayed to direct Opposite Party No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.46,713/- to the Complainant alongwith interest @ 15% p.m. The Complainant has further requested to direct Opposite Party No.2 & 3 to pay an amount of Rs.11,307/- to the Complainant. The Complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.1 Lac towards inconvenience, mental agony and torture from Opposite Party No.1 to 3 and Rs.25,000/- towards cost of legal expenses. In support of complaint, the Complainant had filed his affidavit. The Complainant has produced copies of documents at page no.9 to 52 alongwith complaint.
7) Opposite Party No.1 has filed written statement and thereby resisted claim of the Complainant submitting that complaint is barred by limitation and therefore, deserves to be dismissed with cost. It is further contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this complaint since no cause of action were arose against Opposite Party No.1 in Mumbai. It is submitted that if at all cause of action is arisen, the same has arisen in Agra, U.P., and therefore this Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to try this complaint. It is submitted that in the compliant is stated that the Complainant went to U.K. from September, 1995 and then returned in October, 1996. The Complainant has alleged that certain instructions were given to State Bank of India, Tajganj Branch, Agra, before they proceeded to U.K. vide letter dtd.19/03/97. The averments made in the complaint are inconsistent as according to the Complainants, they went to U.K. in Sept., 1995. Further is submitted that there is no cause of action against Opposite Party No.1 and if it is held that there was any cause of action then the said cause of action arose in the year 1996 and therefore, complaint is barred by law of complaint is barred by law of limitation. Opposite Party No.1 has denied all the allegations made against Opposite Party No.1 and submitted that complaint against Opposite Party No.1 deserves to be dismissed with cost.
8) Opposite Party No.2 in their written reply has resisted claim of the Complainants contending that complaint is misconceived, false and deserves to be dismissed. Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Nagpur by order dtd.29/11/02 has dismissed complaint No.120/2002 filed by the Complainant and therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed being frivolous, vexatious complaint. Complaint No.1096/2003 was also dismissed by order dtd.28/03/2007. Present complaint is hopelessly time barred.
9) It is submitted that the Complainant had filed Complaint No.312/2008 against Opposite Party No.2 making identical allegations in respect of the same subject matter before the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Bandra against Opposite Party No.2 and therefore, present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10) Ex-parte order was passed against Opposite Party No.3 on 01/10/2008.
11) The Complainant has filed written argument. Opposite Party No.1 has filed written argument. From 04/03/2010, Opposite Party No.1 has not present before this Forum, so we heard oral submissions of Ld.Advocate Mr. Anand Gawand for the Complainant and Ld.Advocate Mrs. Archana Ghagh for Opposite Party No.2 and the complaint was closed for order.
12) Following points arises for our consideration and our findings thereon are as under -
Point No.1 : Whether present complaint is barred by law of limitation ?
Findings : Yes.
Point No.2 : Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs as prayed for ?
Findings : No
Reasons :-
Point No.1 :- As described in complaint para no.1, the Complainants had taken 4 policies form the Life Insurance Co. and were paying Rs.1,123.90 paise p.m. towards premium of above 4 policies.
For the purpose of purchase of flat the Complainants had initially made an application for loan of Rs.3 Lacs from Opposite Party No.2 and the said loan was sanctioned on 09/07/1990. Subsequently, the Complainants applied for additional loan of Rs.2 Lacs which was sanctioned on 12/12/1993. The Complainant started payment of EMI of Housing.
It is the case of the Complainant that he is a Senior Rank Officer in IAS Cadre and was out of India on deputation to UK for period from September, 1995 to October, 1996. It is averred in complaint para no.6 before proceedings to UK the Complainant gave standing instructions to Opposite Party No.1 and thereafter again write a letter dtd.19/03/1997 and other connected letter to LIC, the Complainant asked the Opposite Party No.1 to make payment directly to LICHF, Mumbai. Copy of the said letter is produced alongwith complaint at page no.15.
It is grievance of the Complainants after he returned from UK he was shocked and surprised to find that Opposite Party No.1 had on some occasions failed to remit the payment of EMI and premium of the 4 policies and on some occasions were late in making payment, despite there being balance in the account. Due to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1, the Complainant had to pay additional interest to LICHF on delayed payment of Rs.30,000/-. Further it is alleged that Opposite Party No.2 & 3 did not care to send reminder or intimation about the lapsing of policy due to delay or non payment of premium and EMI. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1 and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.2 & 3.
It is submitted on behalf of the Complainant that after much correspondence, Opposite Party No.2 & 3 waived penal interest. Housing Finance Institutions had lowered the rate of interest on already barrowed loan but LICHF did not reduce the rate of interest. After repeated correspondence Opposite Party No.2 waived additional interest of Rs.15,000/- but insisted for the demand of Rs.4,613/- and Rs.2,307/- towards the administrative and processing fees. It is alleged by the Complainant that Opposite Party never informed status of their policies. When the Complainant came to know about status of policies the Complainant immediately paid Rs.33,276/- on 30/11/2000 for missing installment.
It appears from the averments made in the complaint that cause of action for this complaint took place against Opposite Party No.1 on or about October, 1996 and against Opposite Party No.2 & 3 upto April/May, 2000.
It is submitted on behalf of Complainant that the Complainant initially had filed compliant at Nagpur which was transferred to Mumbai and disposed off vide order dtd.28/03/07 by the Central Mumbai District Forum. The said order was challenged before the Hon’ble State Commission and the Hon’ble State Commission by order dtd.14/12/07 and subsequent order for extension of time dtd.29/05/08 directed refilling of complaint before two appropriate Forum. Therefore, according to the present Complainant’s advocate, complaint filed is within prescribed period of limitation.
Ld.Advocate Mrs. Archana Lad for the Opposite Party No.2 has submitted that the present complaint which is filed before this Forum on 11/06/08 is hopelessly barred by law of limitation. As per the averments made in the complaint the cause of action against Opposite Party No.1 took place in the year 1995-96 and against Opposite Party No.2 & 3 upto May, 2000. This complaint is filed 8 years after cause of action. Initially the Complainant has filed this complaint at Nagpur on the same cause of action and said compliant bearing No.120/2012 was dismissed by order dtd.29/11/02 by the Consumer District Forum, Nagpur. The Complainant has not produced copy of the Complaint No.120/2002 and copy of so called order of transfer of complaint at Mumbai. Opposite Party No.2 has produced copy of judgment in Complaint No.1096/2003 filed before the Consumer District Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai in which the Hon’ble Forum has observed that “the Complainant had filed consumer case No.120/2002 before the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Nagpur, making identical averment and praying reliefs. However, by judgement and order dtd.19/11/02 passed by Nagpur Forum, said compliant was dismissed for the want of jurisdiction.” It appears that fresh complaint was filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai in 2007. Therefore, we do not find substance in the submission made by the Complainant that the complaint which was filed before Nagpur Forum in 2002 was transferred to Mumbai Forum. It is averred in the complaint that the Complainant had challenged order dtd.28/03/07 passed by Central Mumbai District Forum and the Hon’ble State Commission vide order dtd.14/12/07 passed order for refilling of complaint before two appropriate Forum and by subsequent order dtd.29/08/08 time was extended. The Complainant has not produced aforesaid orders passed by the Hon’ble State Commission. It was possible for the Complainant to produce certified copy of the said order. However, for want of reliable documentary evidence on record and aforesaid averments made in the complaint cannot be relied upon. Inordinate delay of more than eight years is caused in filing of complaint. There is no application for condonation or inordinate delay caused in filing of complaint. For the reasons discussed above we hold that the present complaint is hopelessly time barred and therefore, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative.
Point No.2 : The complaint is barred by law of limitation, therefore, the Complainant is not entitled to claim any reliefs as prayed for and the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Hence, we answer point no.2 in the negative and pass following order -
O R D E R
i.Complaint No.98/2008 is hereby dismissed.
ii.No order as to cost.
iii.Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.
