DATE OF FILING                    :     22.04.2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      27.05.2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     30.10.2015.

Smt. Dipa Chatterjee,

w/o. Biswanath Chatterjee,

village & P.O. Samta,

District Howrah.………………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT.

• Versus   -

1.         The Branch Manager,

            State Bank of India, Deulti Branch, P.O. Deulti,

            District Howrah,

            PIN 711303.

2.         The Chief Manager,

            State Bank of India,

            Complaint Redressal Cell,  Local Head Office,

            1, Strand Road,

Kolkata 700001.  

3.         The Branch Manager,

            Life Insurance Corporation of India,

            Howrah City Branch 1, P.O. Howrah,

            District Howrah,

            Pin 711101. ………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES.

P    R    E     S    E    N     T

Hon’ble President  :   Shri  B. D.  Nanda,  M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.

Hon’ble Member      :      Smt. Jhumki Saha.

Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.

F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1. Complainant, Smt. Dipa Chatterjee,  by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. 3, L.I.C.I., Howrah  City Branch 1,  to pay the maturity value of the Life Insurance Policy being no. 432354988 along with interest i.e., from October, 2013 till realization, to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation  for mental agony and harassment & litigation costs of Rs. 10,000/-  along  with other relief or reliefs as the  Forum may deem fit and proper. 

2. The case of the complainant is that she applied before State Bank of India, Deulti Branch, Howrah, o.p. no. 1,  for availing herself of  a loan against assignment of  L.I.C. policy being no. 432354988 in favour of o.p. no. 1. The o.p. no. 1,  Deulti Branch, SBI, Howrah, received the original policy document from the complainant. But the o.p. no. 1 neither  sanctioned  loan in favour of the complainant nor returned the original policy document. After lapse of few months she addressed a letter dated 21.01.2014  vide Annexure to the Officer in Charge, Complaint Redressal Cell, State Bank of India, Kolkata, stating that the policy was matured in October, 2013 and without original policy document it is not possible to get the matured amount of the LIC Policy in question but they did not pay any heed. Further she informed Federation of Consumer Associations, West Bengal, vide letter dated 19.03.2014 vide Annexure with a copy to o.p. no. 1, Delhi Branch, State Bank of India. The o.p. no. 1 sent a letter dated 25.03.2014 vide Annexure to the complainant  stating that they submitted her claim before L.I.C.I., Howrah City Branch 1, and assured that the complainant would get the maturity amount very soon. But till filing of the complaint no fruitful result has come out. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative complainant filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayers.

3. Notices were served. The o.ps.   appeared and filed  written version. Accordingly, case was  heard on contest against all the o.ps.  

4. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

2. Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5. Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the complaint petition and the annexures and affidavit in reply filed by the complainant and noted their contents. We have also gone through the written versions of the o.ps.  and noted their contents. From the Annexure I of the complaint petition which is a letter sent by o.p. no. 1 to the complainant, it is very much clear that  the LIC Policy in question was assigned in favour of the o.p. no. 1 for sanction of a loan but the said loan was never sanctioned by the o.p. n. 1 in favour of the complainant.  And unfortunately the policy document was misplaced so the policy document could not be returned to the complainant which was also informed by the o.p. no. 1 to the o.p. no. 3 with a request to issue a duplicate certificate but no fruitful step was taken by either of the o.ps. And complainant made several correspondences to all the o.ps. but all her efforts went in vain and she did not get her matured amount of  Rs. 79,000/- even after the expiry of the maturity date. The o.p. no. 3 has also acknowledged that the policy in question was assigned and registered in favour of o.p. no. 1 and after that logically the policy bond ought to have been lying with the assignee being o.p. no. 1 and they have no practical knowledge about the custody of the policy document in question as this is solely  a matter relating to assignor and assignee being complainant and o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and o.p. no. 3 has also intimated o.p.  no. 1 well in advance of the maturity date to comply with the necessary formalities for settlement of the claim and it is further claimed by the o.p. no. 3 vide para 13 of their written version that the payment had already been made to o.p. no. 1 on 24.04.2014 through NEFT in the account desired by o.p. no. 1 vide Annexure III & IV. Even o.p. no. 1 also executed an indemnity bond being Annexure V  and also sent the discharge voucher dated 21.06.2012 after that only o.p. no. 3 paid the claim amount vide Annexure VI.   So under the above circumstances it is very much clear that o.p. no. 1 played all foul games and complainant was harassed like anything by the unfair trade practice adopted by o.p.no. 1 till o.p.no. 1 issued a banker cheque of  Rs. 79,000/- bearing no. 790549 dated 28.4.2014 towards the maturity amount of the LIC Policy in question without sending any copy of the payment statement showing different components like basic amount, vested bonus, interim bonus etc. Although the o.p. no. 3  sent the same  to o.p. no. 1 and due to the sheer negligence on the part of the o.p. no. 1 complainant received the maturity benefit in such a delayed period for which no other than o.p. no. 1 is entirely and solely liable and responsible.  So we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case, where the prayers of the complainant shall be allowed  in part against o.p. nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed against the o.p. no. 3.  Both the points are accordingly disposed of.

      Hence,

                                                                          O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 237 of 2014 ( HDF 237  of 2014 )  be  allowed on contest in part  with  costs  against  the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed against the o.p. no. 3 without costs.   

      That the  O.P. nos. 1 & 2  are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation within one month hereof i.d., the entire amount of Rs. 12,000/- shall  carry interest @ 9% p.a. till realization.         

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

       Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    Jhumki Saha)                                              

  Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.