Adv.for the complainant - Sri B.S Sathpathy
Adv.for the O.P-1 - Sri O.P.Hota
Adv.for the O.P-2 - Sri S.S.Mishra & Other
Date of filing of the case – 09.08.2016
Date of order - 11.07.2017
ORDER
Sri A.K.Purohit, PRESIDENT
1. The case of the complainant is that, he being a guarantor to the term loan availed by his son from the O.P. No:1, he deposited his LIC policy vide policy No: 590323237 before the O.P. No.1 bank . The said policy is a money Back policy for a period of 20 Years & the premium amount of Rs.142/- was deducted from his monthly salary. The complainant alleges that, although the loan amount has already been cleared by his son and NOC has been issued for the loan amount, the OP. No.1 did not returned the mortgaged document, for which the complainant did not know about the maturity date & has paid premium after maturity of the LIC policy till Dec-2015 which amounts to deficiency in service. The further case of the complainant is that, the O.P. No:2 has not acted as per the terms & conditions of the policy & received the excess premium amount after maturity of the policy till Dec.2015 which is a negligent act of the OP. No.2 . Hence the complainant.
2 Both the O.ps have contested the case by filing their written version separately . The O.P. No:1 denied the complainants allegation & averred that, the O.P. No:1 could not adjust the loan dues by realizing the final maturity value of the policy document without any approach of the complainant in any form for adjustment of the loan account. Further the OP. No:1 submitted that, by the time of one time settlement of loan account of the complainants son the OP. No:1 intimated the complainant to take back the security document, but neither the complainant nor his son taken any step to take back the same although they have collected the no dues Certificate . Hence the OP. No: 1 claims no deficiency in service.
3 According to OP. No.2 , when a policy is assigned as a guarantee against a loan, then the beneficial interests, title & right under the policy is transferred to the assignee bank and hence the OP. No.2 has no responsibility till reassignment in favor of the policy holder. Further the OP. No.2 submitted that, the premium amount received after maturity of the policy has already been refunded till June’2013 & the rest amount up to December’2015 is deposited in the account of the Branch Office . due to non- submission of the discharge voucher the maturity claims has not been settled. Hence there is no negligence on the part of the OP. No:2.
4 Heard both the parties. Perused the material available on record. It appears from the material available on record that, there are two causes of action for the case. So far the O.P. No:1 is concerned , the complainant is a guarantor for the term loan availed by his son Rabindra Ranjan Sarangi. As guarantor the complainant deposited his LIC policy before the O.P. No:1 . It is evident from the NOC issued by the OP. No:1 that, the loan has been closed on dt.09.02.2016 & there is no outstanding exist in the name of Rabindra Ranjan Sarangi. There is no evidence available on record to show that, after closer of the said loan account either the loanee or the guarantor has approached the O.P. No:1 for return of the mortgaged document. There is also no evidence available on record to show that, by the time of obtaining the NOC from the Bank the complainant has taken any step for return of his document from the Bank. It is also a fact that, the loan dues has been settled through one time settlement. When the parties to a loan agreed to settled the dues through one time settlement, there is no requirement for adjusting the maturity amount of the policy document deposited by the complainant. Hence there is no negligence on the part of O.P. No:1.
5 SO far O.P. No:2 is concerned , the policy issued by the OP. No:2 in favor of the complainant is a money back policy, where-in the premium amount was deducted by the employer from the salary of the complainant & remitted to the OP. No:2 Under what circumstances the employer deducted the premium amount from the salary of the complainant after maturity of the policy is a separate cause of action. The D.D.O. has also not been added as a party to explain the circumstances nor there is any evidence available on record to show that, the complainant had approached the D.D.O for stop payment of premium amount. Therefore it is a clear case of non-joinder of parties & mis-joinder of causes of action. In this context it is relevant to refer to a decision of the Hon’ble National commission reported in 2017 (2) CPR98(NC), M/S Avon steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Bajrangbali Transport company Pvt. Ltd, Wherein the Hon’ble National Commission has held that, “a consumer complainant can be dismissed for mis-joinder of parties & causes of action ‘’.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY’2017.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (A.K.Purohit)
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
