THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE No. CC- 48 of 2021

 

Smt. Panna Debbarma,

W/O- Sri Ratan Kumar Roy,

NH-44, A.A. Road,

Chanpur, Agartala,

P.S. Bodhjungnagar,

P.O. Khayerpur,

Tripura(W), Pin- 799008 ................Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. The Branch Manager,

LIC of India, Agartala Branch No.1,

Paradise Chowmuhani,

P.S. West Agartala, P.O. Agartala,

West Tripura, Pin- 799001.

 

 

2. The Branch Manager,

United Bank of India,

Now Renamed as

Punjab National Bank,

Kaman Chowmuhani Branch,

Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

P.O. Agartala, Pin- 799001. ….................Opposite Parties.

 

         __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri Bibhal Nandi Majumder,

  Sri Dhrubajyoti Saha,

  Sri Jibesh Chakraborty,

  Sri Rajib Saha,

  Sri Sajit Chandra Sen,

  Sri Bikash Paul,

  Learned Advocates.

 

  

For the O.P. No.1  : Sri Niranjan Bal,

  Learned Advocate.

 

For the O.P. No.2 : Sri Prabir Saha,

  Learned Advocate.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON :  18.07.2022

 

 

J U D G M E N T

The case arises on the complaint filed by Smt. Panna Debbarma, W/o Shri Ratan Kumar Roy of A.A. Road, Agartala (here-in-after referred to as ‘Complainant’) against the LIC of India, Agartala Branch No. 1(here-in-after referred to as ‘Insurance Company’) and United Bank of India now renamed as Punjab National Bank, Kaman Chowmuhani Branch, Agartala (here-in-after referred to as ‘Bank’) U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

The complainant's case, in brief, is that the complaint held a money back policy with the Insurance Company bearing no. as 490782840 dated 28.06.2099. The policy period was 20 years and such policy was due to be matured in March 2019. The complainant submitted that the policy was endorsed to the Bank and the money back amounts were to be paid to the complainant through the Bank. It is further submitted that the survival benefits in terms of money back payments for three occasions, as were fallen due in the year 2004, 2009 and 2014, had not been paid to the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant, on enquiry, was made known by the Insurance company about the status of payments of money back amount which they had paid in three phases amounting to Rs.35,995/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs.40,000/- on 08.06.2004, 29.06.2009, and 26.06.2014 respectively to the Bank. On further enquiry, the Bank confirmed only the receipt of the payment made on 26.6.2014 and denied receipt of other two payments. On taking up the matter again with the Insurance Company, the complainant was provided with the encashment particulars for payments made on 29.6.2009 and 26.6.2014 while expressing inability to provide so by them in case of payment dated 08.6.2004 citing reason of non-availability of records. Aftermath the encashment particulars provided by the Insurance Company, the Bank had then revised their previous confirmation of receipt of one payment by agreeing the receipt of two payments in keeping with the encashment particulars provided by the Insurance Company. The Complainant made a series of communications with the Insurance Company and Bank requesting them to pay her dues with interest from the date of credit but no heed was paid by either of the parties. Observing the inaction from both sides, the Complainant issued a legal notice on 10.6.2020 to both the parties demanding payment of Rs. 2,71,607/-but to no avail. On being aggrieved by the non- receipt of the survival benefits in terms of three money back amounts, the complainant approached to this Commission seeking proper justice and redressal of her grievances. The Complainant prayed to direct the Insurance Company and Bank to pay Rs. 2,71,607/- constituting the three over-due money back instalments amount with differential rates of compound interest on them and Rs. 50,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost.

  Hence, this case.

3. The Insurance Company contested the case by submitting written statement wherein they refuted and denied all the allegations made by the Complainant against them. It was submitted by the Insurance Company that the policy was assigned to bank and since the time of the assignment, the Bank is the title holder of the policy and, therefore, all payments under the policy are payable to the assignee bank. Accordingly, all payments were made to the Bank on the due dates. It is also contended by the Insurance Company that the Bank did not ever report for non-encashment of any payment instrument whatsoever pertaining to the payment of survival benefits to them. Since all the rights, title and interest of the policy, in question, were transferred to the Bank by virtue of assignment, the Bank was liable to pay the payments that were received by them from the Insurance Company on account of money back instalments fallen due in favour of the complainant. It is also submitted by the Insurance Company that on receipt of ‘No Objection’ from assignee bank, re-assignment action was taken and maturity amount was paid to the complainant amounting to Rs. 3,72,000/- on 29.10.2019.

 

4. The Bank contested the case by submitting written statement, whereby it has been contended that the policy was assigned to them through Insurance Company, for being the complainant approached to them for a loan. Later on, at the request of the complainant they have sent a letter on 03.08.2019 to the Insurance Company to re-assign the policy in favour of the complainant, as the request for loan proposal since withdrawn. It has also been stated that they confirmed the payment of two survival benefits those were fallen due in the year 2009 and 2014 amounting to Rs. 40,000/- in each case but was clueless about the payment due in 2004. The Bank also submitted that the Insurance Company was unable to provide any encashment particulars in respect of payments amounting to Rs. 35995/-, fallen due in 2004. It has also been contended that had the Insurance company sent the details of the policy holder at the time of payments then the Bank could have intimated the policy holder about such payments. It has also been submitted by them that the amount received so far were kept in the suspense account of the bank.  

The Complainant submitted examination-in-chief by way of affidavit of her as P.W.1. The documents submitted by her have been compared and marked as Exhibit -1 Series. The Insurance Company has submitted an examination-in-chief of one, namely, Sri Nabarun Ghosh, Branch Manager, LICI, Agartala Branch by way of affidavit as O.P.W. 1 and the Bank also submitted an examination-in-chief of one, namely, Sri Amit Narayan, Deputy Manager, Punjab National Bank, Kaman Chowmuhani Branch by way of affidavit as O.P.W. 2. The documents submitted by the Insurance Company and Bank have been compared and marked as Exhibit- A Series and Exhibit- B Series respectively.

Now the points to be decided are as follows:

  (i) Whether the Insurance Company and the Bank are liable for deficiency of service in reference to the Complainant?

  (ii) Whether the Complainant is entitled to receive the benefits and other costs, as claimed for?

  As to what extent the Complainant is entitled to receive the benefit

We heard the arguments of both the parties and the arguments made are as follows:

  It is submitted by the Complainant that the Insurance company failed to make payment directly to the Complainant in regards to three survival benefits so fallen due in the year 2004, 2009 and 2014. Furthermore, the Insurance Company did not intimate the Complainant regarding their release of payment of the survival benefits to the Bank from time to time and; that can be termed as gross negligence in delivering services by the O.P. insurance Company thereby causing deficiency of service. The Complainant also argued that the Bank did also not discharge their obligation to disburse the payments to the Complainant, so received by them from the Insurance Company. The Complainant submitted that though she has received the matured amount against the policy in the year 2019 but is yet to receive the payments towards three survival benefits, as committed by the Insurance Company through the policy. It is also submitted by her that it is incumbent upon the Insurance Company and the Bank to provide relief to the complainant by paying her all the dues towards survival benefits along with compensation due to deficiency of service and on account of her causing intense mental pain and sufferings due to such deficiency and the cost of her involved in the process of seeking justice.

  On the contrary, the Insurance Company argued that since the policy was assigned to the Bank and which is why they had released all the dues of survival benefits to Bank, as the assignee bank is the title holder of the policy during the assigned period. It is the liability of the assignee bank to pay the survival benefits to the complainant and the Insurance Company has no role to play therein. It is also submitted by the Insurance Company that on receipt of ‘No Objection’ from the assignee bank, the maturity amount was paid to the Complainant amounting to Rs. 3,72,000/- on 29.10.2019.

  On the other hand, Bank argued that it is true that they had received two amounts of Rs. 40,000/- each and which were credited on 21.8.2009 and 28.6.2014 but they did not receive any amount in relation to the survival benefits fallen due in 2004 amounting to Rs. 35995/-, as being claimed by the Insurance Company. It is also informed by the Bank that the two instalments of money back amount, as received, were lying in the bank’s suspense account and in absence of proper details of the payee, they could not release the payments in favour of the complainant. It is also informed by the Bank that the Insurance Company did not provide any details of the payee while remitting the amounts. They also submitted that it has been requested from their side to the Complainant, by their letter dated 31.7.2020, to provide bank details and identity proof for transfer of the amount.        

 

8. We heard arguments of both sides and travelled over the documents relied upon by the complainant as well as the Insurance Company and the Bank. It is an admitted fact that two instalments of money back amount fallen due in the year 2009 and 2014 amounting to Rs.40,000/- in each case were lying with the Bank. But, Bank denied of receiving the first survival benefit amounting to Rs.35,995/- for which the Insurance Company also could not provide any proof/ particulars of encashment of the payment instrument. Therefore, the Insurance Company can not get away/ escape from the liability of the payment of first survival benefit amounting to Rs.35,995/- to the Complainant.  It is also a clear lapse on the part of the Insurance Company in failing to intimate the Complainant regarding the payment status of the money back amount to Bank from time to time against the policy. Had the Insurance Company intimated the Complainant regarding the details of their paying of money back amounts to Bank for each occasion on time the case would not have reached to the present level of eventualities. 

 

9.  On the other hand, the Bank received two instalments of money back amount, as admitted, but they did not ask or sought for any information whatsoever from the Insurance Company regarding the details of the payee. It is observed that they sit on the money excessively for a long period of time and no effort or attempt was made to obtain the details of the payee despite having their knowledge about the identity of the remitter of the amounts. Further, it is observed that the policy was remained assigned to the Bank for no use of it, as the proposal for availing loan against the policy was withdrawn by the Complainant. Notwithstanding the fact that the liability for payments under the policy primarily lied with the Insurance Company yet the subsequent eventualities emerged, as outlined in the foregoing para, did suggest also about committing defaults by the Bank.

 

10. Now, on appreciation of all the evidences and other records of the case, it is our considered opinion that as the Insurance Company could not provide the encashment confirmation of the payment of first instalment of survival benefit fallen due on 2004 to Bank, the claim by them of making such payment to Bank does give no substance to validate. The Insurance Company could also not otherwise prove the veracity of encashment of such payment. The Insurance Company also failed to intimate the Complainant about the details of their release of payment of money back instalments to Bank during all the three occasions. and, such inaction is tantamount to deficiency of service.  Further, we hold that the Bank, despite knowing the details of the remitter of money i.e., Insurance Company, had remained inert and negligent and did not initiate any effort to obtain the details of the payee from the remitter of money. Further, the bank also defaulted by not sending the proposal for re-assignment of the policy in favour of the complainant once the loan proposal against the policy was withdrawn.

 

11. Now, we are of the opinion that the Complainant is entitled to get all the three survival benefits against the policy no. 490782840 as per the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, we direct the Insurance Company to pay the first survival benefit, fallen due in the year 2004, amounting to Rs.35,995/- along with 6.5% interest on the amount from the date of its fallen due, to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of the judgment. We also direct the Bank to pay the survival benefit instalments, received by them in two phases on 21.8.2009 and 28.6.2014 amounting to Rs.40,000/- in each phase along with 6.5% interest on the amounts from the date of credit of the money in Bank to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of the judgment. The mode of interest calculation shall be at the simple rate in all cases. We further direct the Insurance Company and the Bank to pay compensation of Rs.6,000/- by each to the complainant for her subjecting the sufferings caused due to mental pain and agony for non-receipt of the due amounts after the lapse of such a long period. It is also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- each by the Insurance Company and Bank to the complainant as to the cost of the complainant. In case of failing to pay within the specified time, the amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of judgment till realization of the amount.

 

12. The case, accordingly, is disposed of. Supply copy of the judgment to the parties free of costs.

 

Announced.

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

Dr (SMT) B. PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.