Complaint filed on: 23.10.2013
Complaint Disposed on:15.12.2016
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.91/2013
DATED THIS THE 15th DAY OF DECEMBER 2016
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Mahadeshwara
S/o S.V.Ramachandra
6th Cross, Vijayapura,
Chikmagaluru.
(By Sri/Smt. I.K.Vishwanath, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1. The Chief Manager,
Syndicate Bank,
Chikmagaluru Branch,
Indira Gandhi Road,
Chikmagalur.
2. M/s Bajaj Allianz
Insurance Company,
Represented by its
Branch Manager,
Mathias Towers,
I.G.Road, Chikmagaluru.
(OP1 By Sri/Smt. D.K.Lakshmikanth, Advocate)
(OP2 By Sri/Smt. K.S.Sharath Chandra, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP Nos. 1 & 2 alleging deficiency in service in not returning the original policy bond which was assigned in favour of OP No.1. Hence, prays for direction against OP No.1 to return the documents along with compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant availed education loan from OP No.1/Bank and at the time of borrowing the said loan, the OP No.1/Bank has taken surety of Smt.Subadra W/o D.B.Charamraj and she delivered all the documents pertaining to her house property. Apart from that security the complainant assigned policy bond issued by OP No.2/Company for assured amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to OP No.1/Bank. After assignment, the complainant availed a loan and cleared the entire loan on 23.02.2013 itself. After clearance of the loan, the OP No.1 had not returned the original documents of said surety Smt.Subadra and also not returned the original insurance policy which was assigned by complainant in favour of OP No.1. Due to non delivery of the insurance policy, the complainant was unable to encash the bond amount from OP No.2/Company. The OP No.1 on one or other pretext started drag on the matter and so far had not returned the original policy bond to the complainant. Whenever he approaches OP No.1/Bank they have given evasive reply in this regard. Finally, the complainant issued legal notice dated:14.06.2013 and called upon the OP No.1 to return the original insurance bond with a due endorsement of cancellation of assignment in order to get the maturity amount from OP No.2/Insurance Company. Even in spite of receipt of the legal notice, the OP No.1 neither returned original policy nor replied to the legal notice. Hence, the complainant suffered inconvenience and financial loss. Hence, the complainant filed this complaint against OP Nos. 1 & 2 alleging deficiency in service and prays for return of the original insurance policy along with compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice the OP Nos. 1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed version.
The OP No.1 in his version has contended that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.1,09,000/- from this OP and executed loan agreement dated:19/09/2006. The complainant’s Father Ramachandra and one Subadra had stood as a security to the said loan and they have also executed an agreement on the same day in favour of this OP. At no point of time, the complainant has assigned any insurance policy nor Subadra had delivered her property documents in favour of this OP as a security to the said loan. The agreement executed by the complainant and the said Subadra clearly reveals the said aspects and the complainant has concocted the above story in order to gain wrongfully and filed this false complaint alleging deficiency in service. The notice issued by complainant was suitable replied through their letter dated:28/06/2013. Hence, they are not liable to pay any compensation or any relief claimed by complainant and there is no any deficiency in service on the part of this OP. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
The OP No.2, in his version has contended that this OP is not a necessary party to the above complaint. Release of insurance policy bond is a matter between the complainant and OP No.1. This OP has no role in the dispute between the complainant and OP No.1. This OP do not know that the complainant had availed the loan from OP No.1/Bank and cleared same.
The complainant has not made any claim against this OP and also not made any allegations against this OP. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against this OP.
The OP No.2 further contended that the complainant had taken an insurance policy from this OP vide policy No.0026673011 for the period commencing from 14/09/2006 and ending on 14/09/2016. The policy is for a total sum assured sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. It is also true that the said policy was absolutely assigned in favour of OP No.1/Bank upon the request of the complainant dated:26/09/2006, but this OP do not know that the OP No.1 has not returned the original policy to the complainant. The OP No.2 further contended that the complainant can obtain reassignment of the insurance policy in his favour by submission of required documents including No Due Certificate from OP No.1/Bank. However, the assured amount is payable to the complainant only upon the death of the policy holder during the term of the policy and if the policy holder is alive, the amount is payable only on the date of maturity of the policy and the terms and conditions of the policy is applicable to both the parties. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed against this OP as there is no cause of action arose against this OP.
4. The complainant filed affidavit and marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P4. The OP No.1 also filed affidavit and marked the documents as Ex.R1 to R3. The OP No.2 filed a memo with copy of the assignment of policy and a duplicate copy of the insurance policy issued by them.
5. Heard the arguments:
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
Point No.1: Affirmative.
Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. On going through the pleadings, affidavits and documents produced by complainant and OP Nos. 1 & 2, there is no dispute that the complainant had availed an education loan from OP No.1/Bank to the tune of Rs.1,09,000/- on 19/09/2006. At the time of availing loan, it is also admitted by OP No.1/Bank that complainant’s Father Ramachandra and one Subadra stood as a surety to the said loan, but denies that the complainant had assigned the insurance policy in their favour at the time of obtaining loan. But complainant alleges and sworn affidavit that the policy issued by OP No.2/Company was assigned in favour of OP No.1 at the time of executing loan agreement.
9. During the course of trial this Forum informed the complainant to bring Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company to this complaint as a party in order to know the true facts of the case. Accordingly the OP No.2 was brought on record and he filed version and contended that the complainant has assigned his policy bearing No.0026673011 which commences from 14/09/2006 for sum assured of Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of OP No.1/Bank on 26/09/2006 and also produced the assignment of the policy which clearly shows that the complainant has assigned the policy in favour of OP No.1/Bank at the time of availing loan.
10. But the OP No.1 had strongly denied that the complainant has not assigned the policy. Hence, it is clear case of negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1/Bank. We are of the opinion that after assignment, the OP No.1/Bank could have lost the insurance policy assigned by complainant at the office and in order to avoid their mistake, the OP No.1 had taken a defence that the complainant had never deposited any documents. This Forum only came to know the fact after brining OP No.2 on the record with respect to the true facts of the case. We also observed that the policy issued by OP No.2/Company is matured on 14/09/2016 itself. Hence, it is the duty of the OP No.2/Company to pay the maturity amount by receiving the required documents from complainant without any delay.
11. As far as the deficiency in service, the OP No.1/Bank had rendered a gross negligence in not returning the assigned policy to the complainant after clearance of the loan. Hence, the OP No.1 is liable to pay Rs.25,000/- compensation for deficiency in service along with litigation expenses of Rs.1,000/- and the OP No.2 is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant but they are only liable to pay the sum assured of the policy along with accrued bonus without any delay after obtaining no due certificate from OP No.1/Bank. As such for the above said reasons, we answer the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
-:O R D E R:-
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part.
The OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.25,000/- compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant along with N.O.C. within one month from the date of receipt/knowledge ofthe order, failing which the payable amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of complaint to till realization.
The OP No.2 is directed to pay assured amount along with accrued bonus to the complainant by obtaining NOC from OP No.1 without any delay.
Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by him, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 15th day of December 2016).
(B.U.GEETHA) (H. MANJULA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member President
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant:
Ex. P1 - Special Power of Attorney
Ex.P2 - Letter issued by OP Bank to Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance
Company Dt:13.04.2013
Ex.P3 - Office copy of the legal notice
Ex.P4 - Postal ack due
Documents produced on behalf of the OPs:
Ex. R1 - Copy of the loan agreement
Ex. R2 - Office copy of the legal notice
Ex. R3 - letter issued to the complainant DT:28.06.2013
Dated:15.12.2016 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
Tss
