The instant case was instituted by Swarna Rupali UWSP Gosthy,  a  S.J.S.R.Y. Group registered by the Old Malda Municipality  by Registration No. 536 and having its registered address at Vill. Kumartuli, Post Balia, Nawabganj P.S & Dist. Malda represented by its Secretary Safiya Bibi on the basis of a petition u/s. 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986  which was registered before this Forum as a Consumer Case No. 61/2015.

The fact of the case as revealed from the petition of complaint as well as from the evidence is that the complainant is a S.J.S.R.Y. Group being registered by the Old Malda Municipality vide Registration No. 536 having its registered address at Village – Kumartuli, Post Balia, Nawabganj, P.S. & Dist Malda. The group was created for maintaining their livelihood.

The O.P. Nos. 1 is a nationalized bank carrying his business through its several branches and having its branch office at Balia, Nawabganj, P.O: Old Malda, P.S. & Dist: Malda within the jurisdiction of this Forum. It has been further stated that the complainant is a bonafide ‘Consumer’ within the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On the basis of an application filed by the complainant the O.P. No.3 i.e. Allahabad Bank Nawabganj Hat Branch sanctioned a term loan of Rs. 3,00,000( Rupees Three Lakh Only) by issuing a sanctioned letter dt. 22.11.2012. The monthly installment and repayment term of the said loan is Rs. 4,650/- ( Rupees Four Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Only) and sixty months as mentioned in the sanctioned letter. The said loan was disbursed by the O.P. No.3 on 04/02/2013 bearing Loan A/c. No. 50142879213.

It has been further stated that Samrul Jamal and Taj Mahammad who subsequently by way of amendment added as Pro O.P. Nos. 4 & 5. It has been further stated that the said Samrul Jamal and Taj Mahammad were the guarantors of the said loan and deposited the two LIC policies to the O.P. No. 3 bearing Policy No. 454444300 and the sum assured Rs. 1,00,000(Rupees One Lakh Only)in the name of Samrul Jamal and the Policy No. was 456289829 and the sum assured was Rs.2,00,000(Rupees Two Lakhs Only)in the name of Taj Mahammad and the O.P. No.3 duly assigned the two numbers of LIC policies of the guarantors with the loan account of the complainant.       

It has been further stated that the complainant was deposited the monthly installments regularly in the loan account lying with the O.P. No.3. No single default was made by the complainant till date. On 26/06/2015 the complainant came to know that the O.P. No.3 whimsically collected the surrender value of the said two numbers of LIC policies total amounting to Rs. 1,15,997(Rupees One Lakh Fifteen Thousand Nine Hundred Ninety Seven Only)( Rs. 45,777/- for the Policy No. 454444300 and Rs. 70,220/- for the Policy No. 456289829) without any prior intimation or serving any demand notice to the complainant. In spite of that the complainant did not make any default of payment of the monthly installment in respect of the loan to the O.P. No.3. It is very peculiar to note that the O.P. No.3 did not return back to the complainant till date of the policy nor deposited the amount to the loan account of the complainant for which the complainant is suffering a great financial loss and suffered mental agony. The complainant several times requested the O.P. No.3 for making payment of the said surrender value of the said two nos. LIC Policy but the O.P. did not make any payment to the complainant nor adjusted with the loan account of the complainant. Finding no other alternative the complainant has come to this Forum with a prayer for passing an order for making necessary payment to the LIC for reviving of the said number of policies and paid Rs. 20,000/- ( Rupees Two Thousand Only) for mental pain and agony and Rs. 10,000( Rupees Ten Thousand Only) for litigation cost.

The petition has been contested by the O.P. Nos. 1 to 3 i.e. Allahabad Bank by filing a written version denying all the material allegations as leveled against the O.Ps contending inter alia that the instant case is not maintainable in its present form. The case is barred by law of limitation, the case is bad for non-joinder, mis joinder of parties. The definite defense case is that the two LIC policies were not assigned with the loan account of the complainant. The further defense is that the two LIC policies being nos.454444300 and 456289829 were duly assigned with another two loan account in the name of Lutfar Rahaman and Zakir Hossain and the said loan account were very irregular in respect of payment of loan amount and the two accounts were adjusted all the two LIC policies and close the books of accounts.

Considering such facts and circumstances the instant case is liable to be dismissed.

On the other hand the Pro-O.P.  Nos. 4 & 5 filed a separate W/V. stated that the two LIC policies were assigned to the account of the complainant and the LIC illegally surrender those LIC policies. So considering such facts and circumstances the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for .

In order to prove the case the complainant Safiya Bibi was examined as P.W.-1 and cross-examined. She proves and marked the documents as Exts (1 to 5). No other witness was examined. On the other hand the O.P. did not adduce any evidence to their defense. 

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for or not?

            DECISION WITH REASONS

The complainant will have to prove that the two LIC policies were assigned to the Loan account of the complainant. Now we shall have to consider how far the complainant has been able to prove the fact that two LIC policies have been assigned to the Loan amount of the complainant. On perusal of the sanctioned order which has been marked Ext. -2 it has been found that the Allahabad Bank Nawabganj Hat Branch sanctioned loan of Rs. 3,00,000(Rupees Three Lakhs Only) but on perusal of the sanctioned order we do not find that LIC policies were assigned to the loan amount. It is well settled principle of law that the complainant will prove is own case. The complainant wants to impress upon this Forum on the basis of RTI application that the two policies viz. 456289829 and 454444300 were assigned to Taj Mahammad and Samrul Jamal but on perusal of the said RTI application no where it is found that the two policies were assigned to the loan account. On perusal of RTI application it is found that the two policies were surrendered and the assignee surrendered the policy so by these two RTI applications no where it comes to the imagination that the policies were assigned to the loan account of the complainant bearing No.50142879213.

On the other hand the defense case os the bank is that the LIC policies bearing Nos. 454444300 and 456289829 were duly assigned to another loan accounts which is assigned in the name of Lutfar Rahaman , A/c. No. 22243657262 and in the account of Jakir Hossain bearing No.22243644515 as the loan accounts were very irregular in respect of payment of loan account was unpaid for a long time. This is why the two policies were adjusted.  So considering such facts and circumstances the complainant has miserably failed to prove the fact that the two LIC policies were assigned to the loan account of the complainant. As such the instant case is liable to be dismissed with cost.

                                  C.F. paid is correct

. 

Hence, ordered that

the case be and the same is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs. 1,000(Rupees One Thousand Only)

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost on proper application.