Orissa

Rayagada

CC/110/2017

Sri Rama Kanta Panda - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, IOB, - Opp.Party(s)

Self

25 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT   CONSUMER  DISPUTES REDRESSAL    FORUM, RAYAGADA,

STATE:  ODISHA.

C.C. Case  No. 110 / 2017.                                Date.     25   .     9  . 2018

P R E S E N T .

Dr. Aswini  Kumar Mohapatra,                          President.

Sri  Gadadhara Sahu,                                            Member.

Smt. Padmalaya  Mishra,                                     Member.

 

Sri Rama Kanta Panda, S/O: Late Damburudhara Panda,    AT:Kasturinagar,   Po/Dist:Rayagada  (Odisha),                                                      …. Complainant.

Versus.

1.The   Branch  Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Therubali, Dist: Rayagada.

2. The  Branch Manager,Life Insurance Corporation of India, Rayagada.                                                                                                                             .…..Opp.Parties

Counsel for the parties:                         

For the complainant: - Sri Sitaram Panda, Advocate, Rayagada(Odisha).

For the O.P No. 1 :- Mr. K.Ch.G.S.Kumandan, Advocate,Rayagada.

For the O.P. No.2:- Sri Sahadev Choudhury, Advocate, Rayagada

JUDGEMENT

The  curx of the case is that  the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service  against  afore mentioned O.Ps    for  non continuation of    4 Nos. LIC policies by the O.P. No.2    for which  the complainant  sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant.

Upon  Notice, the O.Ps No.1 & 2 put in their appearance and filed written versions through their learned counsels in which  they haveresisted  allegations made against them.  The O.P No.1 & 2 taking one and another pleas in the written version   sought to dismiss the complaint as it is not maintainable  under the C.P. Act, 1986. The facts which are not specifically admitted may be treated  as denial of the O.P  No. 1 & 2. Hence the O.P No.  1 & 2 prays the forum to dismiss the case against  them  to meet the ends of justice.

Heard arguments from the learned counsels for the    O.P  No. 1 & 2 and from the  learned counsel for the  complainant.    Perused the record, documents, written version  filed by the parties. 

This forum  examined the entire material on record  and given  a thoughtful consideration  to the  arguments  advanced  before us by  the  parties touching the points both on the facts  as well as on  law.

                                                    FINDINGS.

            From the records it reveals that, there is no dispute that the  complainant had taken a loan amount of Rs.1, 40,000/- from O.P  No 1(bank) during  the year 2012 by pledging the six numbers of LIC Bonds of the complainant obtained from O.P No 2( LIC). The LIC policy bearing policy Nos are 590466553, 590460771,570390148, 570402007,570408752, and 570964194. That out of six polices the 1^st two polices has got matured and the same had been taken by the O.P No 1(Bank) from the O.P No. 2 (LIC) with the consent of the Complainant. That during  the month of July, 2017  when the complainant has approached to LIC office to deposit his premium dues, at that time he came to know from the O.P No 2(LIC) that the said polices had been surrendered by the O.PNo 1 (Bank) and now the policy had been closed. Though the complainant was the regular depositor and his polices are not any default, so without any knowledge of the complainant  how the O.P No 1 (Bank) had surrendered and the same had also been accepted by the O.P No.2(LIC). That there is a money back policy bearing policy No. 570402007 and the money back date due was Dt. 28.4.2017, but the O.P No 2(LIC) had not refunded  the money back amount  either to the complainant or to the O.P  No 1(Bank) till now. Though earlier the O.P  No 2 (LIC) had deposited the money back policy amount before the O.P No.1(bank)  during the pendency of payment how the O.P No 2(LIC) had allowed for surrendering the policy with darkness to the regular depositor i.e to the complainant. Further  the O.P No 1(Bank) and has issued a letter to regularize the polices to the O.P No 2 (LIC), but the O.PNo 2 (LIC) has not taken any steps for continuing the polices and then the complainant has approached to this forum. Hence this C.C. case.

  That the O.P No 1 (bank) has admitted in their written version regarding the loan of the complainant by pledging four number of polices and was taken Rs.1,40,000/- and had  surrendered all the four numbers  of the policies and adjusted the loan amounts. The O.P. No.1 (bank) further contended that the complaint  is not maintainable under this forum as he has taken commercial loan.

The O.P No 2(LIC) in their written version has  admitted regarding all the policies of the complainant and also admitted regarding the money back policy amount a sum of Rs.20,000/- which has been kept till now even after the closing of the policy No. 570402007.

In  the present case in hand   the complainant has not filed any complain against the loan, but  he  has filed the complaint against the  LIC policies which is not gone any commercial or business account, as he is one of the customer under the O.P No. 1 and  O.P. No.2  and a bonafied customer.  The O.P No.2(LIC) has admitted regarding the money back policy amount which has been kept till now even after the closing of the policy which is bed in manner. As the O.P No 2(LIC) had not deposited the money back policy amount before the O.P No 1(bank) on the due date  28.04.2017, then after more then one month elapsed  the O.P  No 1(bank) had surrendered the pledged polices due to non receipt of money  from the O.P. No.2(LIC). If the O.P No 2(LIC) was deposited the said money back policy amount before the O.P No 1(bank) on Dt.28.4.2017 (as it is pledged before O.P No 1(bank) then the O.P No 1 (bank)will not surrendered all the polices before the O.P No 2(LIC) and this case will does not arise. So here the O.P No 2(LIC)  is liable for deficiency of services   and negligence to the customers.   Till now the O.P No 2(LIC) has kept  the money back policy amount with him as admitted in their written version.

That the O.P No 1(bank) has also negligent in their service  as he has not issued second time notice and also not served any personal notice to the complainant, and not enquired whether the complainant has  received notice  or not  over phone, though the interest amount is very less only Rs.23,000/-plus amount.

Therefore considering the facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the  O.Ps had exercised undue influence and compelled the complainant to surrender the 4 Nos. LIC policies. This amounts to unfair trade practice. Further  the right of the complainant can not be curtailed by  preventing the  complainant  to exercise their option by not sending  money back policy to a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the bank (O.P. No.1) in due  date when it fell due during the month of May,2017  by the O.P. No.2(LIC).

This is negligence, in action and passivity on the part of the O.P. No.2(LIC).

Dur to sheer negligence and deficiency in service  towards  non transmission of money back amount a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the bank(O.P.No.1) by the O.P. No.2(LIC) in time the bank(O.P. No.1) had surrendered the 4 Nos. of policies.

The  O.Ps have every right to earn profit from its customer, but it should  be reasonable or  acceptable one.  The O.Ps should not be a commercial  business centres for profiteering  from the exploitation of such type customer.

Had  the  policy  been allowed to complete its tenure, it would have given the complainants the protection that they had sought for their   old age by subscribing to the policy.

The actions of the O.Ps  amounted to unfair trade practice as well  as negligence in discharge of  their duties which was a violation of the principles of natural justice  inter alia in violation of its own declared  instructions.  On the other hand  it  amounted   to denial of opportunity to the complainants which clearly  constituted deficiency  of service  on the part of the  O.Ps.

In the present case in hand  the O.P. No.1(Bank)  should have given   sufficient time and  2^nd.  notice  to the complainant, but should not surrender  4 Nos. of policies after  giving one notice.  One notice  was not sufficient. Such type of action  should not be repeated  in future  to the customer at large.

Again this forum observed  the O.Ps have without following the legal procedure given  under the  respective act  and without out following the natural justice with  an intention to cause financial hardship to the complainant  and O.Ps have   acted illegally and  till date the O.P. No.2 (LIC) has  not  continued  4 Nos. of   LIC policies of the complainant.

  Further this forum observed the complainant had suffered mental harassment and  have been deprived of their hard earned money without justification.  We expect  such type of  complaint would continue to commit the same kind of deficiency in service in giving   to the general public.

In this case , the money was with the  LIC office but the LIC did not pay the amount  to the bank.  Had the  LIC paid the amount in due date to the bank it has got no relevance with  the controversy in dispute.  The  O.Ps have neither vigilant nor  prudent.  First of all, the money was available  during the month of  May, 2017  but  the  O.P.No.2(LIC)  did not discharge their duty  properly.   They did not give a   sufficient notice  to the complainant  his  money back amount is not being paid.  The O.P. No.2 (LIC) is terribly remiss in discharge of its duties.  Its bizarre conduct shows negligence, in action and passivity on their part.

Further   the  O.Ps.  had acted  indiscipline manner which amounts objectionable  under the principles of law. This forum  observed  the O.Ps service is deteriorating and does not follow business ethics. This is undoubtedly  speaking  of the unfair trade practice resorted to by the O.Ps  with a view   to hoodwinking  gullible consumers.

We find  that the delay on the part of the O.P.No.2 (LIC) in forwarding the amounts to the O.P. No.1(Bank)  stands established. All the same  it  was for the O.P. No.1(bank) for not   allowing  sufficient time  and  non  submission of  2^nd.  Notice   to the complainant also stands established.

Thus, in context of maintaining good relationship,  between bonafied  policy holder- LIC authority, having regard  to the facts and circumstances,  we are of the view that   it would be  just and proper that the O.P.No.2 (LIC) should have allowed continuation of 4 Nos. of   LIC policies of the complainant.

So in this case we are of the opinion that the O.Ps are completely negligent  and deficiency rendering  in  service  to the complainant. This forum further  observed   the O.Ps   service are deteriorating and does not follow business ethics. This is undoubtedly  speaking  of the unfair trade practice resorted to by the O.Ps   with a view   to hoodwinking  gullible consumers.  That due to unfair trade practice,  delay, negligence and deficiency in service  by the O.Ps the complainant   sustained  financial loss  mental agony, damages  etc.

Hence to meet  the  ends  of  justice,  the following   order is  passed.

                                                                ORDER.

In  resultant the  petition of the complainant stands allowed  in part against the O.Ps on contest.

 

The O.P No 2(LIC) is directed to allow and continue the four number of LIC policies i.e. (1) 570390148,  (2) 570402007,  (3) 570408752, and (4) 570964194 by receiving the surrendered value and the up to date premium without charging any interest from the complainant. Further  the complainant is directed to deposit the surrendered values and the up-to-date  premiums of the four numbers of polices before the O.P No. 2(LIC).

Parties are left to bear their own cost.

 

The O.P. No.1(bank) is directed to refer the matter to the O.P. No.2 (LIC) for early  compliance of the above order.    

                The Parties are   ordered to comply the above direction within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Served the copies to the parties free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.     Pronounced on this         25  th. Day of    September, 2018.

 

MEMBER.                            MEMBER.                                                            President