This is a case u/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant against the O.Ps named above.
The fact of the case of the complainant, in a nutshell, is that the complainant took loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- under the P.M.R.Y. Scheme in May, 2007 vide his Loan Account No. 1660104727 and the complainant was converted to C.C. Loan by O.P No. 1 by enhancing the loan amount to the tune of Rs. 1,35,000/- and the complainant for the purpose of entering into the necessary agreement to the satisfaction of O.P No. 1 and mortgage his LICI Money Back Policy bearing no. 455048535 for sum assured Rs. 1,00,000/- with the O.P No. 1 as security of the loan. Thereafter, the complainant repaid his loan amount to the tune of Rs. 95,818/- to the O.P No. 1 against his existing loan amount between the period from 31/03/2011 to 22/09/2016 and due to sudden fall of his business he could not repay the outstanding loan amount.
The further case of the complainant is that O.P No. 1 filed one Pre-litigation case against the complainant before the DLSA at Alipurduar vide P.L. Case No. 2515/2017 demanding Rs. 2, 95,659/- from the complainant against the existing loan which was beyond the capacity of the complainant to pay the same where the Hon’ble Judges of National Lok Adalat settle the claim amount at Rs. 1,00,000/- and ordered that the complainant would pay Rs. 2,000/- out of the settled amount on that very day of verdict i.e. 09/09/2017 to the O.P No. 1 and the balance amount of Rs. 98,000/- would be paid by the complainant within next six months which shall be commenced from October, 2017 in default the O.P No. 1 would be at liberty to realize the entire amount by execution. It was also mentioned in the said award that the LIC Policy of the complainant should be return to the complainant if not encashed in the meantime and if encashed in the said amount be adjusted from the settled amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Further from the letter of O.P No. 1 addressed to O.P No. 2 Vide No. CBI/Alipurduar/2017-18/317 dated 25/01/2018 that the premature proceeds of the LIC Policy No. 455048535 of the complainant an amounting to Rs. 16,098/- was received by O.P No. 1 on 11/09/2017 from O.P No. 2 i.e. after passing of the award of National Lok Adalat but the complainant when approached to O.P No. 1 for return of his LIC Policy as per esteemed order of the said Lok Adalat dated 09/09/2017, O.P No. 1 ignore it by returning the premature proceeds of the LIC Policy of the complainant amounting to Rs. 16,098/- to the O.P No. 2 requesting him to revive the LIC Policy of the complainant Vide his aforesaid letter dated 25/01/2018 which is clearly violation of the order of Lok Adalat by O.P No. 1.
The complainant has further alleged that the survival benefit under the LIC Policy of the complainant for due 12/2015, payment due date 31/08/2017 and date of payment on 01/09/2017 amounting to Rs. 15,321/- received by O.P No. 1 through NEFT payment from O.P No. 2 was not reflected in the statement of account of Bank dated 15/09/2017 by O.P No. 1. The O.P No. 2 did not revive the said LIC Policy of the complainant though complainant approached to O.P No. 2 as per award of Lok Adalat dated 09/09/2017 and it was return to him by O.P No. 1 within the period of six month although after premature surrender of the LIC Policy by O.P No. 1. The complainant has further alleged that due to the act of O.Ps he has suffered irreparable loss as the O.P did not revive the LIC Policy.
Hence, this case has been filed by the complainant with a prayer to direct O.P No. 2 to revive the money back Policy No. 455048535 and also prayed for to direct the O.P No. 1 to adjust the amount of Rs. 15,321/- which was received by the bank against the LIC Policy from O.P No. 2 through NEFT payment with the remaining amount of Rs. 98,000/- supposed to be paid by him as per verdict of National Lok Adalat. The complainant has also prayed for direction the O.Ps to pay sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental pain, agony, harassment and also prayed for direction to O.Ps to pay 10,000/- towards litigation costs.
Both the O.Ps have appeared before this Forum and contested the case by filing written version denying all the material allegations as leveled by the complainant against them.
The complainant and the O.Ps have filed evidence-on-affidavit separately. Both of them also filed written argument. Both parties also filed some document in support of their respective cases.
We have heard argument from both sides and also perused the materials on record meticulously.
Considering the above pleadings the following issues are necessarily come out to consideration to reach just decision of the case.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the complainant a consumer u/s.2 (1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant case?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as he prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are interlinked to each other as such all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience. The case has been filed u/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 according to section 2 (1)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant who is customer of the bank is the Consumer of the said Act regarding the service referred by the bank to the complainant as a customer. The allegation of the complainant is that there is a deficiency in service from the side of the bank so accordingly the complainant is the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Whereas the complainant and the both O.Ps are the resident of District - Alipurduar, State - West Bengal, as such we also find and hold that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try this case and whereas the claim amount does not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum as such this Forum has pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
This case has been filed by the complainant stating that he took loan from the O.P No. 1 and thereafter the said loan amount has been enhanced and the loan is converted to CC Loan by the bank wherein his LIC Policy being No. 455048535 sum assured of Rs. 1 Lakh was deposited to the bank for security. The further allegation of the complainant is that the bank filed a pre-litigation case before the National Lok Adalat held on 09/09/2017
Contd. P/4
inspite of his payment of loan amount and in the Lok Adalat it was settled between the parties that Rs. 1 Lakh is to be paid by the complainant to the bank and it is ordered that Rs. 2,000/- is to be paid on spot and rest amount is to be paid in equal installments. The further order is that the amount from LIC Policy be adjusted in if cashed during the period or if not it will be returned to the parties. The Lok Adalat order dated 09/09/2017 has been taken into effect on filed of an amount of Rs. 2,000/- at the spot and complainant has accepted the same but unfortunately, the complainant did not try to re-payment the Rs. 98,000/- to the bank. It appears that the bank has started premature withdrawal of the LIC Policy before initiation of the proceeding of Lok Adalat and after order passed by the Lok Adalat; bank receipt the same amount and thereafter bank sent the said amount to O.P No. 2 to reinstated the policy in favour of the complainant. Now, the question is whether the complainant will get any relieve or whether the O.Ps have any deficiency in service or not this proceeding has initiated after passing the order of the Lok Adalat on 09/09/2017 which has been received by the complainant and O.P No. 1 and the complainant has paid Rs. 2,000/- at the spot in terms of the Lok Adalat order. It also appears that the complainant did not pay any further amount to the bank as per direction of the Lok Adalat the policy of insurance has been encashedby the bank and the order has been received on 11/09/2017 although, the procedure has been initiated long before the date of order. It also appears from the evidence as well as the documents of the record that the said amount has been returned to LIC by the bank vide his letter dated 25/01/2018 amounting to Rs. 16,098/- by demand draft in terms of the letter of this complaint to the bank dated 20/10/2017 so there is no laches from the part of O.P No. 1 he has returned the amount of premature withdrawal of the LIC Policy on a good faith with an expectation that the complainant shall pay Rs. 98,000/- to the bank but unfortunately, the complainant did not pay a single farthing after payment of Rs. 2,000/-. The complainant has himself violated the direction of the Lok Adalat by not making any further payment to the bank, bank had the liberty to adjust the said premature withdrawal amount of the policy but inspite of that he returned the said amount to the LIC for revival the premature of the policy of the complainant. Bank has no laches or no deficiency in service in this regard.
O.P No. 2 that is the LIC Department was not made party in the Lok Adalat there is no cause of action against O.P No. 2 by the complainant it was an internal correspondence in between bank and LIC according to the rule of LIC. The Plan No. 179 of the policy can not be reinstated after premature withdrawal for that reason the policy of the complainant has not been survive but there is no loss to the complainant in this regard as because the amount of premature withdrawal of the policy is to be adjusted from the amount order by the Lok Adalat. We find that the O.P No. 2 is unnecessary party in this case. We also find that the complainant did not obey the order of the Lok Adalat instead
Contd. P/5
that he has filed this case only to drag the payment of the loan amount he had accepted the order of the Lok Adalat by way of settlement and making payment of Rs. 2,000/- he himself has violated the direction of the Lok Adalat and try to get relief by filing this case against the O.Ps.
We find that there is no deficiency in service from the side of O.P Nos. 1 & 2. O.P No. 2 is not a necessary party. The complainant himself, after accepting the order of the Lok Adalat, violated the same with an intention for not making any further payment he has filed this case. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief here from.
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence, for ends of justice; it is;-
ORDERED
that the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest without costs.
Let a copy of this final order be sent to the concerned parties through registered post with A/D or by hand forthwith for information and necessary action.
