COMPLAINT FILED ON:21.01.2011

DISPOSED ON:01.02.2012

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

1^st DAY OF FEBRUARY-2012

  PRESENT:-  SRI. B.S. REDDY                       PRESIDENT

                     SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA                       MEMBER

       COMPLAINT NO.146/2011

O R D E R

SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT

The complainant filed this complaint U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, seeking direction against Opposite Parties (herein after called as OPs) to pay sum of Rs.1,350/- with interest Rs.500/- towards cost and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation on the allegation of deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

2. The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-

The complainant has taken policy from LIC of India by paying full amount of Rs.2,66,665/- and the policy No.614533026 and the LIC accepted to pay interest at the rate of 9% and it works out to Rs.2,000/- per month. It is accepted by the LIC to credit monthly interest amount to the complainant’s Account No.2513101003343. The complainant applied for a loan and OP2 through its letter dt.30.10.2009 granted the loan of Rs.2,00,000/-. In that letter, there was no mention except to pay the interest to LIC by the complainant every 6 months. There was no information about the payment pension by OP2 and how the loan is repaid. After this the interest payment was stopped by OP2 from November-2009 onwards. The complainant paid interest of Rs.8,200/- by cheque on April 7, 2010 and Rs.9,000/- by cheque dt.08.10.2010 within the due dates. The complainant had sent several letters to LIC for payment pension due from November-2009 as accepted by LIC every month as the complainant paid the interest of Rs.8,200/- and Rs.9,000/- respectively on the due dates. OP1 has accepted the deficiency of service in his letter dt.11.12.2010 and 06.01.2011. At last on January 1, 2011, after several letters addressed to OP1, an amount of Rs.28,000/- is credited to the complainant’s account by Ops. The said amount represents the pension of 14 months from November-2009 to December 2010. OP1 would not have paid the monthly interest without follow-up of the complainant. While it gets interest for the loan sanctioned to the Policy Holder and other benefit for keeping the policy interest with them, thereby, OP1 is enjoying dual benefit by not serving the Policy Holders. The above amount of Rs.28,000/- is delayed by 14 months by OP1 and for calculation of interest for delayed payment of Rs.28,000/- at the rate of 9% comes to Rs.1,350/-. The complainant had spent Rs.500/- for several follow up by sending letters to the IPP and visiting the office of Ops. Hence, the complaint.

3.   On appearance Op2 filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, there is no deficiency of service on the part of Ops. It is admitted that the complainant has taken policy and OP has agreed to pay interest as per the terms of the said policy. As per the rules pertaining to the grant of loan under VPBY policies the branch has obtained application along with an undertaking given by the life assured, to suspend the annuity, for a period of 6 months. On these conditions loan was sanctioned on 30.10.2009 for Rs.2,00,000/-. As per the conditions of loan, payment of pension of Rs.2,000/- p.m. was temporarily suspended. That being so the allegations that there was no information about the payment of pension by the OP2 and it was not clear as to how the loan is to be repaid etc., is untenable and cannot be accepted. It is stated that there was a bonafide delay in reporting the confirmation with regard to payment of interest from the concerned Branch to the OP1 and therefore, the IPP Cell (OP.No1) could not release the pension immediately. This being the fact, the delay occurred if any, there is no willful and absolutely there is no deficiency in service. The alleged admission of deficiency of service in its letter dt.11.12.2010 and 06.01.2011 is totally untenable, unacceptable. On the receipt of confirmation from the Branch regarding payment of interest due up to October 2010, a sum of Rs.28,000/- was credited i.e., pension from November-2009 to December-2010, for 14 months at the rate of Rs.2,000/-p.m. In view of the same, the allegation that OP1 has been enjoying dual benefit by not serving the policy holders is totally untenable. To compensate the delay, in releasing the annuity, as per the instructions of the OP1 the branch has calculated interest at the rate of 8%p.a. from 01.05.2010 to 01.01.2011 for 36 months and a sum of Rs.480/- has been paid by LIC vide cheque No.701629 dt.12.01.2011 to the complainant. In the light of these true facts, the complaint is vexatious and deserves to be dismissed for suppression of true facts. The allegation that the complainant is entitled for Rs.1,350/-towards delayed payments and Rs.500/- for follow up etc is not justified. There is no basis for the claim of Rs.5,000/-. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

4.   During the pendency of the proceedings, the complainant is reported dead her son being the only LR came on record and continued the proceedings.

5.   The complainant’s LR filed affidavit evidence to substantiate complaint averments. OP2 has not filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version.

6. Both parties filed Written Arguments.

7. Arguments on both sides heard,

8. Points for consideration are:  

Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proved

                   deficiency in service on the part of

                    the OPs?

Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled

                    for the relief’s now claimed?

Point No.3:- To what Order?

9. We record our findings on the above points:

Point No.1:- Affirmative.

Point No.2:- Affirmative in part.

Point No.3:- As per final Order.

R E A S O N S

10.The undisputed facts are that the deceased complainant N.V.Lakshmi had taken a policy from LIC of India by paying an amount of Rs.2,66,665/-, the policy No.614533026 and LIC accepted to pay interest at 9% p.a. on the said amount of policy which works out at Rs.2,000/- p.m. The LIC accepted to credit the said monthly amount of Rs.2,000/- to the account of the complainant. The complainant applied for loan and OP2 granted loan as per letter dt.30.10.2009 of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-. On the said loan amount interest of Rs.8,200/-was paid by the complainant through cheque dt.07.04.2010 and further sum of Rs.9,000/- by cheque dt.08.10.2010 within due dates. The interest of Rs.2,000/- by way of pension to be credited to the account of the complainant was delayed from November-2009. After several letters addressed by the complainant to OP1, on January 1^st 2011 the amount of Rs.28,000/- was credited to the account of the complainant towards the pension of 14 months from November-2009 to December-2010. Thus the complainant is claiming interest at 9% on the said delayed payment of pension totally amounting to Rs.1,350/-. If the said amount of Rs.28,000/- was regularly credited to the account of the complainant on due dates, the complainant could have being benefited by earning interest on the said amount. The complainant has paid the interest at 9% p.a. on the loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as such on the delayed payment of Rs.28,000/- pension she is claiming interest at the same 9% p.a.

11.The complainant has produced cheque for Rs.480/- dt.12.01.2011 sent by OP1 towards interest on the delayed payment of pension by calculating interest at 8% p.a. The said interest appears to have been worked out for 6 months from 01.05.2010 to 01.01.2011 but in the version and affidavit evidence, OP has stated the period as 36 months. The reason assigned by the OP2 for the delay of 14 months for crediting the monthly pension of Rs.2,000/- from November-2009 to December-2010 is that there was bonafide delay in not informing the receipt of interest particulars on the loan granted to the complainant, by the concerned branch. Thus it is stated that there is no willful delay in crediting the said amount, the delay was due to bonafide reasons in reporting the confirmation with regard to payment of interest from the concerned Branch to OP1. In our view, OP1 cannot escape the liability on the ground of bonafide mistake committed by its Branch in confirming the receipt of interest on the loan sanctioned to the complainant by the concerned Branch. Had that amount of pension was regularly credited to the account of the complainant from the month of November-2009 monthly at Rs.2,000/- till December-2010 for a period of 14 months, the interest on the said amount could have been accrued to the benefit of the complainant. Because of the delay in crediting the said amount the complainant has been deprived of interest on the said amount as such the act of OP1 in crediting the amount of Rs.28,000/- representing the pension for 14 months from November-2009 to December-2010 at the rate of Rs.2,000/- p.m. only on 01.01.2011 amounts to deficiency in service on its part. Interest at the rate of 9% p.a. claimed by the complainant on the said amount which works out of Rs.1,350/- is just and reasonable. Ops are liable to pay the said amount along with litigation expenses of Rs.500/-. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:

O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.

Ops are directed to pay an amount of Rs.1,350/- along with litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the LR of the deceased complainant.

This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.

Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs.

(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 1^st day of February– 2012.)

MEMBER                                                         PRESIDENT

Cs.