Presented by Sri P.K.Dash, Member .
The complaint pertains to deficiency of service, enumerated under the provision of Consumer Protection Act-1986 and the gist of the complaint here under:-
The Complainant obtained a policy bearing No. 60512012 from Life Insurance Corporation of India., Bargarh who happened to be the Opposite Party No.1(one) in this case and the said polity was to be matured on Dt.15/02/2008. The Complainant had pledged the said policy before State Bank of India (Commercial Branch), Bargarh i.e. the Opposite Party No.2(two) of this case interalia for loan purpose.
The contention of the complaint is that as per the terms of the policy and as the policy was pledged before Opposite Party No.2(two), the Opposite Party No.1(one) was duty bound to disburse the maturity amount with all entitlement due to the Opposite Party No.2(two) in time to exonerate the Complainant from his loan liability with Opposite Party No.2(two). After several oral and written approach by the Complainant, the Opposite Party No.1(one) did not pay the maturity dues to the Opposite Party No.2(two) for which the Complainant served the pleader Notice Dt.21/10/2011 on Opposite Party No.1(one) to compensate the interest along with penelty/default interest which is realized from him by the Opposite Party No.2(two).
Further contention of the Complainant is that Opposite Party No.1(one) in his reply to the Complainant's pleader Notice informed that due intimation on Dt.10/01/2008 was sent to the Opposite Party No.2(two) to sent the discharge voucher and original policy bond of Life Insurance Corporation, Bargarh pledged before Opposite Party No.2(two) by the Complainant which was received by his office on Dt.10/02/2011 and immediately on Dt.10/02/2011 released the insurance amount to the Opposite Party No.2(two) bank and the delay was due to non submission of policy bond and discharge voucher by the Opposite Party No.2(two).
Further contention of the complaint is that the Complainant had to pay delayed interest and penalty to the Opposite Party No.2(two) bank for the fault of both the Opposite Parties, which as such a service deficiency by these Opposite Parties to the Complainant.
The Complainant relied upon the following documents in support of his contention.
Xerox copy of Pleader Notice Dt.21/10/2011.
Xerox copy of reply letter Dt.02/08/2011 by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to the Complainant.
Xerox copy of original policy bond.
The Complainant prays for the direction of the Forum.
For payment of interest of the bank i.e. Opposite Party No.2(two) which is realized from him for the delayed payment of maturity amount of Life Insurance Corporation policy by the Opposite Party No.1(one).
Damages of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh)only on account of harassment, mental agony etc.
Cost of the proceeding and any other relief the Complainant is entitled for.
Having noticed the Opposite Parties appeared and filed their version through their respective counsels. The Opposite Parties denied all the allegations and so also the allegation of deficiency of service lebelled against them by the Complainant.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) in his version contends that the policy bearing No.60512012 which was issued to the Complainant, later on assigned in favour of Opposite Party No.2(two) on Dt.26/05/2005 against a loan taken by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2(two) being the assignee was entitled for all the benefits of the policy. The Opposite Party No.2(two) was duly intimated vide letter Dt.10/01/2008 to submit the original policy bond and discharge voucher before the Opposite Party No.1(one) for settlement of maturity claim. But unfortunately the Opposite Party No.2(two) did not submit those documents and as per the statutory provision it was not possible for Opposite Party No.1(one) to settle the claim without original policy bond and discharge voucher. Soon after the receipt of policy bond and discharge voucher on Dt.10/02/2011. The Opposite Party No.1(one) settled the claim and paid the maturity amount of Rs.1,21,620/-(Rupees one lakh twenty one thousand six hundred twenty)only vide cheque No. 163740 in favour of Opposite Party No.2(two).
Further contention of Opposite Party No.1(one) is that the Complainant never approached either orally or in writing for the settlement of maturity amount and the delayed payment of maturity amount was due to the late submission of original documents by the Opposite Party No.2(two). The Original dispute is between the Complainant and Opposite Party NO.2(two) and Opposite Party No.1(one) is no way responsible and liable for the claim of the Complainant.
The Opposite Party No.1(one) is support of his claim relies upon the xerox copy of the following documents.
Intimation letter Dt.10/01/2008 (one sheet)
Despatch register (three sheets)
Letter Dt.06/06/2011 to the Complainant (one sheet)
Letter Dt.05/03/2011 to the Complainant (one sheet)
Letter Dt.28/05/2011 issued by Opposite Party No.2(two) to Opposite Party No.1(one sheet).
The Opposite Party No.1(one) prays for direction of the Forum for dismissal of the Complaint with cost.
The Opposite Party No.2(two) in his version contends that the Complainant had obtained a loan bearing No. 10441923353 and the loan amount was cleared up and loan account was closed by the Complainant. The Life Insurance Corporation Policy bearing No. 60512012 in the name of the Complainant was placed before the Opposite Party No.2(two) for adjustment of the loan amount pending against the Complainant and the said fact was intimated by Opposite Party No.2(two) vide letter No. BR/GEN/110 Dt.25/05/2005 for assignment and surrender value to the Opposite Party No.1(one).
Further contention of the Opposite Party No.2(two) is that the Opposite Party NO.1(one) never intimated the Opposite Party No.2(two) for submission of discharge voucher the original policy bond and he was intimated vide letter Dt.10/01/2008 by Opposite Party No.1(one) is denied and Opposite Party No.2(two) in his version claims that it was the duty of the Opposite Party No.1(one) to transfer the maturity amount in favour of Opposite Party No.2(two) after the date of maturity and the allegation of deficiency of service against him towards the Complainant is not tenable as per law.
The Opposite Party No.2(two) prays for dismissal of the complaint with cost.
Having gone through the case record, documents annexed to it pleadings of the Parties and heard argument advanced by the Parties. The Issues likely to be decided as follows:-
Whether the Complainant is transparent in bringing the allegation of his complaint ?
Is there any deficiency of service caused by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant ?
To what relief the Complainant is entitled for ?
ANSWER TO ISSUE NO.1(ONE).
It is admitted by all the Parties that, the maturity of Life Insurance Corporation Policy bearing No. 60512012 stand in the name of the Complainant is paid by the Opposite Party No.1(one) to the Opposite Party No.2(two) as per the assignment made to Opposite Party No.2(two) in shape of cheque on Dt. 11/02/2011 in leu of the Complainant's loan account with Opposite Party No.2(two) and repayment thereof, hence payment has been delayed for more then two years beyond the actual date of maturity i.e. 15/02/2008 of the Life Insurance Corporation Policy. Hence the facts admitted need not be proved.
The fact that the Complainant had approached the Opposite Party No.1(one) both in orally and in written for payment of the maturity amount is not proved with any cogent evidence by the Complainant. So also the Complainant has neither filed the account statement of his loan account with Opposite Party No.2(two) nor any documents relating to amount of loan incurred, the interest there upon and penalty for default payment of maturity amount of the Life Insurance Corporation Policy is not comprehensively established.
In this circumstance the Complainant is not transparent in bringing the complaint and the issue is answered as above.
ANSWER TO ISSUE NO.2(TWO).
The Opposite Party No.1(one) in his version Para-4(four) contends that the intimation letter Dt.10/01/2008 had been sent to the Opposite Party No.2(two) under certificate of posting on Dt.14/01/2008. He could have sent the intimation letter by Regd. Post with AD. So that proof of the receipt of letter by Opposite Party No.2(two) would have procured and the due intimation could have been proved and to avoid the denial of receipt of the intimation letter Dt.10/01/2008 by the Opposite Party No.2(two). The xerox copy of despatch register filed by Opposite Party No.1(one) failed to relate the intimation letter Dt.10/01/2008 and to prove the despatch of the intimation letter to Opposite Party No.2(two).
The Original Life Insurance Corporation Policy bond which was assigned and in the custody of Opposite Party No.2(two), mentioned there in the date of maturity and the polciy was assigned to the Opposite Party No.2(two) interalia for the repayment of loan taken by the Complainant and the non submission of the original documents before Opposite Party No.1(one) in due time is admitted by Opposite Party No.2(two) vide its letter No. BR/GEN/ No.132 Dt.28/05/2011. Moreover no such documents or reasons cited by the Opposite Party No.2(two) for non submission of documents in time and to prove his bonafideness.
The due intimation to Opposite Party No.2(two) for submission of discharge voucher and and original policy bond is not proved comprehensively by Opposite Party No.1(one). So also the reasons for non submission of original policy bond and discharge voucher in due time before Opposite Party No.1(one) for settlement of maturity amount of the Life Insurance Corporation Policy is also not proved in any way by the Opposite Party No.2(two) which he is duty bound to do. Such act of Opposite Parties are also a service deficiency to the Complainant, the issue No.2(two) is answered as above.
ANSWER TO ISSUE NO.3(THREE).
One thing is established that delay has been caused for payment of maturity amount of the Life Insurance Corporation Policy stand in the name of the Complainant. The Complainant also miserably failed in establishing his actual loss for such delayed payment of the matured amount of his Life Insurance Corporation Policy for which he (Complainant) has to bear additional interest for his loan account with Opposite Party No.2(two). However as due intimation is not properly proved by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant is some what entitle for deficiency in service. The issue is answered as above.
From the discussion made above, the evidence on record and the assertion and counter assertion made by Parties, the Forum Order as follows:-
- O R D E R -
The Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only to the Complainant towards compensation for harassment, mental agony and cost of the litigation within forty five days from the date of Order i.e. Dt.19/05/2014, failing which the awarded amount shall carry 9%(nine percent) interest per annum till the actual realization of the entire amount.
The complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
I agree, I agree, I agree, Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) ( Smt. Anjali Behera) (Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r. P r e s i d e n t
