IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No.CC/ 88/2016 .
Date of Filing: 06.06.2016. Date of Final Order: 24.11.2017.
Complainant: Biswanath Dutta, S/O Late Bijay Gobinda Dutta, Vill. Milkipara, P.O. Cossimbazar,
Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742102.
-Vs-
Opposite Party: 1. The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Chunakhali Branch, P.O. Cossimbazar,
Dist. Murshidabad, Pin 742102.
2. The Regional Manager, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Kolkata,
Syndicate Bank Building, East Kolkata 700017.
3. The General Manager, Syndicate Bank, Head Office, Manipal, Karnataka,
Pin -576104.
Present: Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya …………………. President.
Smt. Chandrima Chakraborty ……………………..Member.
Sri Manas Kumar Mukherjee …………………….. Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri Anupam Bhattacharyya –President.
The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant U/S 12 of C. P. Act, 1986 praying for payment of matured value of LIC policy amounting to Rs.4.20 lakhs and compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for mental pain and agony.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant took loan of Rs.2 lakh mortgaging his LIC policy bearing No. 423921577 whose matured value is Rs.4.20 lakh at a half yearly premium of Rs.5766/- whose sum assured is for Rs.2 lakh and its date of commencement was 08.4.2003. The complainant used to pay LIC Policy premium regularly. The complainant lastly deposited Rs.15, 000/- on 31.03.2016 with loan a/c , the OP Bank issued a letter dated 02.12.2015 for renewing the loan account. The complainant after receiving the letter met with the Branch Manager along with his required papers but the Branch manager told that the loan amount so small then the complainant have nothing to do. After that the OP No.1 sent a letter dated 05.05.2016 by Regd. Post with A/D. The complainant got and found that the OP No.1 encashed the mortgaged LIC policy No. 423921577 in premature period and adjusted an amount of Rs.1,16,269.46 towards the closure of such credit facility and the rest amount of Rs.10,311.54 be kept with OP No.1. After that the complainant sent registered notice to OP for relief but no reply. Then, the instant complaint was filed. Hence, the instant complaint case.
The written version filed by the OP-Bank , in brief, is that the OP had O.D a/c bearing NO. 95631240001005 and took a loan of Rs.2 lakh for his shoe business and as security deposited his LICI policy bearing No. 423921577 issued on 8.4.2003 whose sum assured was Rs.2 lakh . The said policy was assigned by the complainant in favour of the OP Bank against the credit facility. The said O.D limit was fixed up to 11.12.2015 subject to renewal as per terms and conditions of the Bank. The s aid A/C became NPA on 14.3.16 being not regularized by the complainant. The OP-Bank by his letter dt. 09.12.15 requested the complainant to renew the loan a/c but did not pay any heed to it and then the OP intimated complainant by letter dt. 16.3.16 about premature redemption of mortgaged policy and for no response the OP pre-matured the said policy and adjusted Rs.12658/- towards outstanding dues of the said OD A/c on 25.4.16 and the balance amount of Rs.10311.54 as DD is lying with them being not received by the complainant. There is no cause of action. The case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the instant written version.
Considering the pleadings of both parties the following points have been raised for the disposal of the case.
Points for decision.
- Whether the complaint is maintainable in its present form and in law?
- Whether there is any cause of action to file the case?
- Whether the case is barred by law of limitation?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for?
- To what other relief/reliefs the complainant is entitled to get?
Decision with Reasons.
Point Nos. 1 to 5.
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.
This case is for payment of matured value of LIC policy amounting to Rs.4.20 lakhs and compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for mental pain and agony.
The complainant’s case is that he took loan of Rs.2 lakh mortgaging his LIC policy bearing No. 423921577 whose matured value is Rs.4.20 lakh at a half yearly premium of Rs.5766/- whose sum assured for Rs.2 lakh and its date of commencement was 08.4.2003. The complainant used to pay LIC Policy premium regularly. The complainant lastly deposited Rs.15, 000/- on 31.03.2016 with loan A/c , the OP Bank issued a letter dated 02.12.2015 for renewing the loan account. The complainant after receiving the letter met with the Branch Manager along with his required papers but the Branch manager told that the loan amount so small then the complainant have nothing to do. After that the OP No.1 sent a letter dated 05.05.2016 by Regd. Post with A/d. The complainant got and found that the OP No.1 encashed the mortgaged LIC policy No. 423921577 in premature period and adjusted an amount of Rs.1,16,269.46 towards the closure of such credit facility and the rest amount of Rs.10,311.54 kept with OP No.1. After that the complainant sent registered notice to OP for relief but no reply.
On the other hand the OP’s case is that the complainant took loan of Rs.2, 00,000/- for business mortgaging his LICI policy with a condition that the loan document is to be renewed after three years and a letter was issued to the effect but he did not comply with. Then the OP had to encash the premature LICI policy and adjusted the same with the loan account and balance amount of Rs.10,311.54 was asked the complainant to receive by way of Demand Draft but the same was refused. The OP has no deficiency in service and as such the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint case.
To prove the case the complainant had adduced evidence-on-affidavit and some relevant documents in support of his case.
On the other, the OP bank has filed some document by fristi in support of their case.
From the aforesaid documents, it appears that both parties have relied upon the same document i.e. The letter dt. 02.12.2015 issued by the OP bank to the complainant informing him for renewal of OD Limits as the said limit is about to expire on 11.12.2015.
From this document filed by the complainant it is clear that the complainant has received the said letter from the OP and thus there is no question of without intimation as to renewal of the O.D. Limits of the complainant in respect of the impugned loan.
The OP’s case is that the impugned loan account became NPA on 14.03.2016 and having no response from the side of the complainant, the OP had to encash the pre-matured LICI policy as per guidelines.
From the letter dt. 05.05.2016 issued by the OP bank in favour of the complainant, it is clear that that complainant was intimated for renewal of his credit facility but for the inaction on the part of the complainant, the said loan account got NPA on 14.3.16.
In the said letter, it has also been mentioned that a letter dt. 16.03.16 was issued informing the status of the loan account of the complainant becoming NPA and premature closing of LIC policy No.423921577 but still there was no response from the side of the complainant. The said letter dt. 05.05.2016 issued by the OP Bank in favour of the complainant, being filed from the side of the complainant, there is no doubt that the matter was within the knowledge of the complainant.
Now, the question is whether the pre-mature encashment is legal or not.
In this regard the OP bank has filed Letter of Authority for Government Security/UTI/LIP relating to the term and conditions. The Point No.5 reads as follows:-
“On my failure to repay the dues to the Bank, the Bank is at liberty to encash prematurely or on or after maturity or otherwise dispose off the above assets in any manner as it deemed fit without any notice to me and I recognize your right to exercise the General Lien at any time in respect of the above assets delivered to you which right also may be exercised by you without any specific notice to me.’’
From the above, it is clear that the OP has rightly en-cashed the policy prematurely.
That being so, there is no deficiency on the part of the OP Bank and as such the complainant is not entitled to get any relief .
Considering the above discussions as a whole, we can safely conclude that the complainant hopelessly failed to prove his case and as such the complaint stands dismissed.
Hence,
Ordered
That the Consumer Complaint No. 88/2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
There will be no order as to cost.
Let a plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgment / be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.
