West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/130/2014

Subhendu Bikash Bag. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, United Bank of India. - Opp.Party(s)

25 Aug 2015

ORDER

                                                             DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and  Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.130/2014

                                                       

Subhendu Bikash Bag………………Complainant.

Versus

                                  United Bank of India……         ……..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant : Mr. Asim Kumar Dutta, Advocate.

              For the O.P.                : Mr. Santanu Das, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 25/08/2015

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President- Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant applied for agricultural loan before the opposite party-Bank and the opposite party-Bank issued him a U.B.I. Kishan Credit Card and opened a loan account being no.1158250023357 on 20.01.2009. Opposite party –Bank sanctioned agricultural loan of Rs.98,000/- in favour of the complainant.  At that time, the opposite party –Bank informed the complainant that they are the agent of TATA AIG and told the complainant that TATA AIG has recently launched  a policy and if the complainant takes that policy in that case he will have to pay three premium  @ 15,000/- and thereafter a handsome amount will be received by that policy out of which he will be able to repay the entire loan.  Hearing that, the complainant got a policy of TATA AIG being no.U070284306 and in terms of the policy condition, he paid three premium before the TATA AIG and after receiving Rs.45,000/-, TATA AIG sent a policy bond in the name of the complainant.  On 26/03/14, the complainant got a cheque of Rs.30,788.84/- issued by the TATA AIG Life Insurance Company Ltd. in favour of the complainant and seeing that, the complainant came to know that the maturity value of that policy is far less than the deposit amount of Rs.45,000/- as premium.  On 12/02/14, the complainant informed the entire matter to the opposite party–Bank but the opposite party–Bank gave no reply. It is stated that the

Contd…………..P/2

 

                                                                                 

( 2 )

complainant is a consumer under the opposite party –Bank and by practicing unfair trade practice, the opposite party –Bank insisted the complainant to get the said policy of the TATA AIG and they are also guilty for deficiency in service.  Hence, the complaint, praying for directing the opposite party –Bank to adjust the said sum of Rs.45,000/-, which was paid by the complainant in connection with that Insurance Policy  with his loan account and for paying Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as harassment cost. 

                  The opposite party–Bank  has contested this case by filling a w/o.  Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the OP that the present complaint is bad for non- joinder of necessary party.  It is stated that in absence of TATA AIG Insurance Co., the instant case is not maintainable.  It is also stated by the opposite party–Bank that the complainant took loan from their Bank on many occasions  and on different dates and he has only loan transaction with the opposite party–Bank and no other activity was done by the Bank with the complainant.  No insurance policy was issued by the Bank nor was any insurance premium taken by the Bank towards the said TATA AIG life insurance policy.  On 7/08/14, the complainant took loan of Rs.95,000/- and his present outstanding balance is Rs.96,001.89/-.  The complainant did not turn up to regularize his said loan account uptill now.  TATA AIG Insurance Company is separate business concern and the opposite party–Bank is no way concerned with TATA AIG Insurance Co. regarding their business policy. OP-Bank only provided the TATA AIG Company the Bank premises for selling policy to different bank customers and others, who willfully and voluntarily purchased the policy from TATA AIG after fully knowing well about their future prospects.  There was no pressure or compulsion from the Bank authority for purchasing any such policy by the complainant.  It is further stated after purchasing the Insurance Policy from the TATA AIG, the complainant prematured his policy and surrendered the same to the TATA AIG Company and as such less return has come in the said policy for pre matured surrender.  If the said maturity amount is not sufficient or in contrary to the policy papers, the complainant should have taken up the matter with the TATA AIG Company only and for such reason, TATA AIG Company is a necessary party in this case.  Opposite party –Bank therefore prays for dismissal of the complainant.           

Point for decision

                      Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?                          

Decision with reasons

                                      In support of their respective cases, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and the documents, relied upon by the complainant, have been marked as Exhibit

Contd…………..P/3

 

                                                       

                                                     

                                                    ( 3 )

                1 to 8 respectively.  On the other hand, opposite party –Bank has examined it’s present Bank Manager Sri Ajit Kumar Dey as OPW-1. Documents relied upon by the Op-Bank have been marked as exhibit A to E respectively.  Now the main point for consideration in this case is that as to whether the amount of premium of Rs.45,000/- in respect of TATA AIG Policy is to be adjusted with the loan account of the complainant by the opposite party –Bank.  It is not denied and disputed that the complainant holds a U.B.I. Kishan Credit Card, issued by the opposite party –Bank and he took agricultural loan of Rs.98,000/- from the opposite party–Bank.  It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party –Bank inspired him to get the policy of TATA AIG and being insisted by the opposite party –Bank, he got that policy of the TATA AIG Insurance Company and after payment of three installment @ 15,000/-, the TATA AIG issued maturity value of Rs.37,788.84/- by issuing a cheque in the name of the complainant.  Curiously enough, TATA AIG has not been made a party in this case, in spite of the objection regarding non-joinder of necessary party by the opposite party–Bank in their written objection.  There is no evidence on record that the opposite party–Bank insisted the complainant to get that policy of TATA AIG. In his cross-examination, the complainant has stated that he has relationship with the opposite party–Bank regarding taking of loan and repaying the same.  He has further admitted in his cross-examination that he is no document to show that the Bank Authority insisted him to purchase the said policy from TATA AIG.  His cross-examination reveals that he is aware of the terms of TATA AIG Insurance Policy.  Since, there is no evidence at all to show that the opposite party–Bank insisted the complainant for getting that policy of TATA AIG, so they can not be held liable for any loss sustained by the complainant for such pre-mature surrender of the policy.  Moreover, as we have already stated that the TATA AIG has not been made a party in this case,  so, it is held that the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and as such  the present case is not at all maintainable.  The complainant’s case is therefore liable to be dismissed.

                                          Hence, it is,

                                                Ordered,

                                                                     that the complaint case no.130/2014 is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost. 

             Dictated & Corrected by me

                               Sd/-                                           Sd/-                                          Sd/-

                          President                                    Member                                   President

                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                                       Paschim Medinipur