The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum District Office Premises, Kolar 563 101. consumer case(CC) No. CC/10/08
Smt.Chandramma,
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Branch Manager, The Manager,
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
CC Filed on 11.01.2010 Disposed on 23.08.2010 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR. Dated: 23rd day of August 2010 PRESENT: Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President. Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member. Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member. --- Consumer Complaint No. 08/2010 Between: Smt. Chandramma, W/o. Narayanaswamy, Civil Judge Senior Division Court, Kolar. (By Advocate Sri. G.V. Gopal Reddy) .Complainant V/S 1. The Branch Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, Branch Office, Shaheda Complex, P.B. No. 20, N.R. Extension, Chinthamani, Chikkaballapur District. (By Advocate Sri. Sama Rangappa) 2. The Manager, H.D.F.C Bank Limited, Kasturaba Road, Bangalore City. (By Advocate Sri. Ganapathi Bhat & others) .Opposite Parties ORDERS This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to settle the claim due under the complainants life insurance policy No. 611038963 for Rs.50,000/- with interest at 24% p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of payment with costs, etc., 2. The material facts for the disposal of this case, as may be gathered from the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties may be stated as follows: That the complainant obtained a loan of Rs.1,85,000/- on 27.03.2002 for purchase of a house bearing katha No. 368/398 situated at Vemgal Village, Kolar Taluk. She executed the loan agreement on the same day. She undertook to utilize the loan for the purpose for which it was granted. The loan was repayable in monthly installment of Rs.2,204/- for 180 months commencing from 01.04.2002. The complainant also assigned four Life Insurance Corporation policies obtained in her name from OP.1, in favour of OP.2 as collateral security. One such L.I.C policy concerned in this case is policy No. 611038963 for Rs.50,000/- obtained on 28.08.1993. The premium payable for this policy was Rs.343/- p.m. under salary deduction scheme. The complainant was an employee of State Government working in a Court. The said policy matured for payment on 28.07.2008. After maturity of the said L.I.C policy the complainant approached OP.1. She was instructed to produce original L.I.C policy for settlement of claim. It is alleged by complainant that then she approached OP.2 with a request to directly send the original L.I.C policy in question to OP.1 or to handover that original policy to her for settlement of the amount due under the policy. It is alleged by complainant that inspite of repeated requests with both OPs the amount due under policy was not yet settled. Therefore she filed the present complaint on 11.01.2010. 3. OP.1 appeared and filed version contending that it has no objection for payment of the amount due under the L.I.C policy in question and that it instructed the complainant through several letters to produce the original policy, but she failed to produce it, therefore the claim could not be settled. OP.2 appeared and contended that after obtaining the loan of Rs.1,85,000/- the complainant had not produced the original sale deed for having purchased house property bearing katha No. 368/398 situated at Vemgal Village, Kolar Taluk inspite of repeated notices and thereby violated the terms of loan agreement. Further it contended that the subsequent investigation revealed that the complainant had not at all purchased the said property for which the loan was sanctioned. Further it is contended that as on the date of complaint the complainant was still liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,28,391/- towards loan and she committed default in repaying the loan as demanded. It is contended by OP.2 that the complainant had agreed to mortgage the said house property after its purchase but she failed to carry out that term. However the perusal of the terms contained in the loan agreement does not show that there was such undertaking by the complainant to create such mortgage. But the loan agreement prescribes that the amount should be utilized for purchase of the said house property and the complainant should produce proper evidence for having invested the amount for purchase of that property. The complainant does not claim that she utilized the loan for purchase of the said property. Therefore it may be true that the complainant had not utilized the loan amount for purchase of the house property as agreed. Therefore the complainant is liable to repay the entire loan and interest at once as per the terms of loan agreement. So far as the L.I.C policy in question OP.2 denied that the complainant approached this OP for sending the original policy to OP.1 or handing over the policy to her for settlement of claim due under it. OP.2 admits the assignment of L.I.C policy in question in its favour by complainant and contends that the amount due under the policy should be credited to it as the loan is still outstanding. It does not claim that it had directly made a claim before OP.1 for settlement of the amount due on the policy on the basis of assignment. There is no material on record to infer that a valid notice as required under sec 38 (2) of the Insurance Act 1938 was issued to insurer OP.1. As per the oral instruction of this Forum during one of the hearing dates, OP.1 sent cheque No. 453916 dated 02.08.2010 for Rs.62,450/- drawn in favour of President of this Forum, towards full and final settlement of the amount due under the said L.I.C policy. Therefore this Forum is in custody of the said amount. 4. The parties filed affidavits and documents. We heard the Learned Counsel for parties. 5. From the rival contentions and submissions of parties the following points arise for our consideration: Point No.1: Whether the complainant proves that there is deficiency in service by OP.2 by not sending the original L.I.C policy to OP.1 or handing over it to her after its maturity? Point No.2: If so, to what order? 6. After considering the materials on records and submissions of parties our findings on the above points are as follows: Point No.1: There is no dispute that the complainant assigned the L.I.C policy in question in favour of OP.2 for having received the consideration of loan amount. The copy of the L.I.C policy produced before this Forum shows that the assignment was made by complainant in writing attested by a witness. As already noted there is no material to infer that notice of assignment was issued to OP.1. Only disputed fact is whether complainant made request with OP.2 to send the said L.I.C policy to OP.1 for settlement of the claim or requested it to handover that original policy to her. During the initial stage of this case the Counsel for complainant expressed its intention that OP.2 itself can receive the amount due under the policy and adjust it towards the outstanding loan. It appears inspite of it, OP.2 might not have sent the original policy to OP.1. From the facts and circumstances of the case, we are clearly of the opinion that complainant must have requested OP.2 soon after OP.1 demanded to produce original L.I.C policy. OP.1 had sent several letters to complainant to produce the original policy. Therefore the contention of OP.2 that complainant had not approached it with such request to send the original policy to OP.1 appear to be not true. We think if the assignment of policy was intimated to insurer as per law, it becomes the duty of OP.2 to claim the amount from OP.1 soon after maturity of the policy. OP.2 cannot keep custody of the original policy so as to delay or defeat the settlement of claim under the policy. Therefore we hold that there is clearly deficiency in service by OP.2. Hence Point No.1 held in affirmative. Point No.2: If the original policy was sent to OP.1 soon after the maturity, we think OP.1 would have settled the claim within 3 months from the date of maturity i.e. 28.07.2008. Then either the complainant or OP.2 would have realized the amount of Rs.62,450/- due under the policy on or about 27.10.2008. If the amount was realized at that time the burden of complainant towards loan and interest could have been decreased to the extent of amount received. Therefore we think this increased burden of paying additional interest by complainant is to be borne by OP.2 itself apart from paying costs. Hence Point No.2 is held accordingly. O R D E R The complaint is allowed against OP.2 H.D.F.C Bank Limited with costs of Rs.1,000/-. OP.2 shall credit the amount of Rs.62,450/- to the loan account of complainant as if it was remitted on 27.10.2008 and shall calculate the balance loan amount payable afresh. The amount of Rs.62,450/- deposited in this Forum shall be paid to OP.2 on filing a Memo by it. The complaint against OP.1 is dismissed. Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 23rd day of August 2010. MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
