Before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rohtak.
Complaint No. : 406
Instituted on : 01.08.2023
Decided on : 22.05.2024
Balbir Singh Dahiya age 73 years s/o Sh. Chand Ram r/o H.No.1580/9, Sukhpura, Near Hafed, Rohtak-124001.
……….………….Complainant.
Vs.
- The Branch Manager, LIC of India, Office at Jeevan Jyoti Subhash Road, Opposite Aakashwani, Rohtak-124001.
- The Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Asthal Bohar, Near Baba Mast Nath Eye Hospital, Rohtak-124001.
...........……Respondents/opposite parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT.
BEFORE: SH.NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT.
DR. TRIPTI PANNU, MEMBER.
DR. VIJENDER SINGH, MEMBER
Present: Sh. Sandeep Hooda, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh.Krishan Lal, Advocate for the opposite party No.1.
Opposite party No.2 exparte.
ORDER
NAGENDER SINGH KADIAN, PRESIDENT:
1. Brief facts of the case as per the complainant are that he availed life insurance policy from the opposite party No.1 vide policy no.173489195 on 15.07.2003(wrongly written as 2023 in complaint) for sum assured Rs.100000/-. On 28.02.2004 complainant had availed a loan facility from the opposite party no.2 i.e. Canara Bank to the tune of Rs.70000/- against the LIC policy. The benefits of policy were surrendered with Canara Bank to secure the loan repayment. The complainant had repaid the loan to opposite party No.2 on 28.11.2007. Opposite party No.2 had made a certificate regarding this and the same was endorsed by opposite party No.1 on 04.12.2007. On 15.07.2023 after the maturity of policy, the complainant had approached the opposite party No.1 to get the sum assured. But the opposite party No.1 had refused to disburse the sum assured to the complainant mentioning that No Objection Certificate is to be provided by respondent no.2 against the loan. On 24.07.2023 complainant had approached the opposite party No.2 regarding NOC of the loan but the opposite party No.2 had refused to issue NOC stating that record pertaining to the loan has been destroyed. The opposite party No.2 has already made an endorsement regarding the clearance of loan amount on 28.11.2007 and the same is in the knowledge of opposite party No.1 since 04.12.2007 but opposite party no.1 is not disbursing the sum assured to the complainant without any justifiable and cogent reason. The act of opposite parties is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this complaint and it is prayed that opposite parties may kindly be directed to pay the sum assured of Rs.100000/- alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from 15.07.2023, to issue NOC regarding the loan taken by the complainant, to pay compensation of Rs.30000/- on account of harassment and deficiency in service and Rs.30000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant.
2. After registration of complaint, notices were issued to the respondents/opposite parties. Opposite party No.1 in its reply has submitted that it is denied that the respondent no.1 ever refused to disburse the sum assured to the complainant. The complainant till date failed to furnish No Objection certificate from the above said Bank regarding his loan. It is the duty of the complainant to furnish NOC from the opposite party no.2 to the opposite party. The opposite party no.1 cannot release the maturity claim without furnishing the NOC from the concerned bank. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and opposite party no.1 prayed for dismissal of complaint with cost.
3. Opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that they are unable to find any whereabouts of Sh. Balbir Singh Dahiya as per their bank record, neither the customer is able to provide any relevant documents such as any saving bank account details with the bank or any loan related documents. Even the customer is not sure whether he is having any saving account with their bank. Since the referred documents are of the year 2007, bank policy pertains to keep the records for 10 years, so they are unable to provide any physical documents regarding the loan. Since Sh. Balbir Singh Dahiya is not able to provide any documents or information related to Canara bank and as per bank record there is no outstanding liability of the said customer with the bank. However, opposite party No.2 did not appear on 10.04.2024 and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 10.04.2024 of this Commission.
4. Complainant in his evidence has tendered affidavit Ex.CW1/A, documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C7 and has closed his evidence on dated 02.02.2024. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the opposite party No.1 has tendered affidavit Ex.RW1/A, documents Ex.RW1 and closed his evidence on dated 08.05.2024.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material aspects of the case very carefully.
6. In the present case claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the opposite party no.1 on the ground that the complainant has not submitted the NOC issued by the opposite party no.2. On the other hand, the complainant presented the form no.3857 issued by the opposite party No.1 to certify the same but the opposite party no.2 made an endorsement on dated 24.07.2023 that : “It is not clear that the alleged papers are related to Canara Bank so requested to present the documents related to Canara Bank”. However after filing the present complaint, a reply has been filed by the Canara Bank i.e. opposite party No.2 on 23.10.2023 and has submitted that : “Since Sh. Balbir Singh Dahiya is not able to provide any documents or information related to Canara bank and as per our bank record there is no outstanding liability of the said customer with the bank”. Meaning thereby complainant has repaid all the loan amount and there was no outstanding liability against the complainant. But despite submitting the alleged reply by the opposite party No.2, claim of the complainant has not been paid by the opposite party No.1. Hence opposite party No.1 is liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant. It is also observed that opposite party no.2 in its reply has submitted that there is no outstanding liability of the complainant but earlier on 24.07.2023 they did not identify the papers of the complainant due to which the complainant had to file the present unwanted litigation. Hence there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2 is liable to compensate the complainant.
7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case we hereby allow the complaint and direct the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.100000/-(Rupees one lac only) on account of claim amount to the complainant. Opposite party No.2 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) on account of deficiency in service and Rs.5000/-(Rupees five thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of decision, failing which opposite party No.1 shall be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs.100000/-(Rupees one lac only) from the date of decision till its realisation.
8. Copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open court:
22.05.2024.
........................................................
Nagender Singh Kadian, President
..........................................
Tripti Pannu, Member.
……………………………….
Vijender Singh, Member
