Before the District Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 31st day of January, 2005
C.D.No.96/2004
B.Jayalakshmi Devi,
W/o. Late B. Govinda Reddy,
H.No. 45/24-K-12,
Ashok Nagar,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri K. Lokeswara Reddy. Advocate
-Vs-
Branch Manager,
Syndicate Bank,
Main Branch,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party represented by his counsel
Sri E. Giddaiah. Advocate
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon’ble Lady Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite party to pay him the matured fixed deposit amount of Rs. 67,260/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of maturity till realization Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony, Rs.2,000/- as costs of the case and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
- The brief facts of the complainants case is that the complainant has deposited an amount in the year 1996 in the fixed deposit under VCC bearing No. 7741 for a period of two years. Subsequently, on 2.9.1998 the said fixed deposits was renewed and renewed deposit receipt bearing No. 10719 was issued by the opposite party under VCC fixed deposit and the maturity date of the said deposit is on 1.12.2001. After maturity the complainant approached opposite party for payment of matured amount, but the opposite party did not pay the matured amount and stated that the said deposit amount was adjusted towards the loan amount due under O.S.L. PMRY 6/96 of one K.Ravi Suresh, alleging the complainant stood as surety to the said PMRY loan and further alleging the complainant under took repayment of said loan in case if the borrower fails to pay the said loan amount. But the complainant submits that she never stood as surety to the loan amount of one K.Ravi Suresh and the signatures were obtained by said K.Ravi Suresh in the Bank premises stating that one person is required as an attestor for is loan transaction and never stood as a guarantor and never under took to repay the loan amount of K.Ravi Suresh. As the said K.Ravi Suresh failed to repay the loan amount the opposite party bank filed a suit in O.S. 859/1999 on file of Principal Junior Civil Judge Court, Kurnool against the said K.Ravi Suresh and the complainant for recover of loan amount due by the said K.Ravi Suresh, the
said suit was dismissed on 13.2.2003 on the finding that the loan agreement dt 8.3.1996 in respective said loan transaction is not legal and the same is not binding on the complainant. The said judgment has became final as no appeal was preferred. Based on above finding the opposite party act of adjusting the VCC deposit amount of complainant to the loan of K.Ravi Suresh is illegal and void. After pronouncement of the above judgment the complainant approach the opposite party several times for repayment of VCC fixed deposit amounts, but the opposite party was postponing to pay the said amount on some pretext or other. The above said lapsive conduct of opposite party constrained the complainant to resort to the forum for redressal of the claim as prayed in the complainant.
3. In substation of her case the complainant filed the following documents Viz (1) Notice dt 12.12.2003 issued by complainant’s counsel to the opposite party (2) reply notice dt 22.12.2003 issued by opposite party’s counsel to the complainant’s counsel (3) Xerox copy of judgment in O.S. No. 859/1999 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Kurnool, and (4) Xerox copy of authorization letter dt 2.9.1998 given by the complainant along with petitioner affidavit in I.A 1987/2001 in O.S No. 859/1999, besides to her sworn affidavit in reiteration of her complainant averments and suitable replied for the interrogatories filed by opposite party and the above documents as Ex A.1 to A.4 for its appreciation in this case.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel before this Forum and contested the case by filing denial written version as defence.
5. The written version of opposite party admits that the complainant depositing under VCC deposit receipt bearing No. 7741 for two years and it was further renewed on 2.9.1998. It further alleges that the complainant stood as surety to one K.Ravi Suresh who availed loan under O.S.L PMRY 6/96 and the said K.Ravi Suresh failed to repay the said loan amount, the opposite party filed a suit in O.S No. 859/99 against the said K.Ravi Suresh and the complainant. After full fledged trial the Hon’ble Principal Civil Judge, Kurnool dismissed the suit on 13.2.2003 and the same is not binding the second defendant. The opposite party on 12.12.2003 received the lawyer’s notice of the complainant and immediately gave reply the said notice. It submits that the complainant should preferred an appeal against the judgment caused in O.S. No. 859/99 where in it is clearly mentioned that D 2 claimed back the said amount from the plainti if bank, as the D2 as not paid the court fee for the said counter claim, D2 cannot claim any relief. Once again the complainant has filed this complaint for refund of VCC amount, therefore the Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. The amount of complainant was adjusted to the loan account of K.Ravi Suresh in the year 1999. Therefore, the complainant should have filed the complaint before the Forum within two years form the date of adjustment of the said amount. Hence, there is no limitation to file this complaint before the Hon’ble Forum.
6. In substantiation of its case the opposite party relied on following documents Viz (1) reply legal notice dt 22.12.2003 of opposite party’s counsel to complainant’s counsel and (2) acknowledgment for the receipt of Ex B.1, besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party in reiteration of its written version and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 and B.2 for its appreciation in this case.
7. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service and deficient conduct on part of opposite party?:-
8. There is no dispute as to the fixed deposit of complainant under VCC deposit with opposite party bank. The said deposit was matured on 1.12.2001and the complainant is entitled to the matured amount of Rs.67,260/-. On approach to the opposite bank for matured amount the opposite party refused to pay stating that the said amount was adjusted towards the due under loan account OSL PMRY 6/96. But the complainant submits that being an illiterate woman without knowing the contents of those documents, signed in good faith on the printed forms of the bank, by mis representing her that they are required as an attester to the said loan transaction.
9. The Ex A.3 is the Xerox copy of judgement dt 13.2.2003 in OS NO. 859/99 on the file of Junior Civil Judge Court, Kurnool, it clearly says in Page No.6 the signatures of the complainant are obtained on printed forms of the bank by mis-representing her that they are required as an attestor to the said loan transaction, the complainant being an illiterate women without knowing the contents of those documents and without knowing the implication of her affixing the signatures on those papers, have singed there in good faith. It was further held that the loan sanction to the said K.Ravi Suresh was under Prime Minister’s Rozgar Yojana scheme, when the loan to the beneficiaries upto a limit of Rs.95,000/- is sanctioned no surety is required to be furnished by the beneficiary. Therefore, in this case as the loan amount granted by the opposite party to the said K.Ravi Suresh was under PMRY Scheme, no surety is required for the same, hence, the alleged agreement of surety said to have obtained from the complainant by the opposite party bank is unwarranted, without any authority and is illegal and not binding on the complainant and the complainant is not liable for non payment loan amount by K.Ravi Suresh. No doubt the complainant has put her signatures on Ex A.4 i.e authorization letter dt 2.9.1998 only as an attestor for granting of loan to K.Ravi Suresh, without knowing the contents of the same, it doesn’t mean that the opposite party bank can realize the said amount from the complainant’s VCC deposit treating her as a surety, since under the PMRY Scheme surety is not required therefore the contention of the complainant is to be accepted. Hence, the opposite party bank cannot adjust the VCC deposit amount of the complainant to the loan account OSL PMRY 6/96 of one K.Ravi Suresh.
10. The opposite party in support of their allegations made in their written version did not place any cogent, relevant, material and in the absence of any supporting material the allegations of opposite party on this aspect not only remains highly in consistence but also there by untrust worthy and as consisting of any bonafidies of the opposite party in that regard.
11. The Ex A.1 is the legal notice dt 12.12.2003 of the complainant’s counsel addressed to opposite party bank, the same grievances such as non payment of matured amount of the complainant under VCC deposit inspite of maturity on 1.12.2001 and the complainant when approached the opposite party for matured amount alleged adjustment towards loan amount of one K.Ravi Suresh alleging the complainant stood as surety and thereby the complainant allege deficiency of service on part of opposite party claiming the payment of matured amount of Rs.67,260/- with 18% from the date of maturity i.e 1.12.2001 till payment and cost of notice as Rs.200/-. The Ex A.2 /B1 is reply of the opposite party denying all the material averments of Ex A.1 notice of complainant as false and allege the adjustment by bank the amount of VCC deposit to the loan amount is unjust and improper. The Ex B.2 is the acknowledgement for receipt of Ex B.1 by the complainant’s counsel.
12. The opposite party also alleged that the complaint filed by the complainant is barred by limitation as deposit was matured on 1.12.2001. The complainant filed a separate delay condonation petition which was allowed by this Forum condoning the delay. Hence, the allegation of opposite party is rejected.
13. The opposite party except alleging the defaultive loan account of K.Ravi Suresh under PMRY Scheme and adjusting the said amount from the VCC deposit of the complainant and filling Ex B.1& B.2 did not substantiate their bonafides and malafides of the complainant by substantiating the same by any accepting and corroborative material.
14. Hence, in the circumstances discussed above there is clear deficiency of service on part of opposite party bank in not paying the matured amount under VCC deposit of the complainant and adjusting the said deposit amount to the loan account of OSL PMRY 6/96 of K.Ravi Suresh is unjust and unreasonable, as no surety is required to be furnished by the beneficiary for granting such a loan and the surety of complainant is unwarranted and without any authority and not binding on the complainant and the complainant has signed the black forms of the bank as an attester and has no intention to stand as surety to K.Ravi Suresh. More over the opposite party bank has failed to prove that how the surety is required for sanctioning loan under the Prime Minister Rozgar Yojana Scheme to the beneficiaries for adjusting the complainant’s deposit amount to the said loan. Therefore, the complainant is perfectly remaining entitled to the matured amount.
15. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the complainant matured amount of Rs.67,260/- under VCC deposit with 12% interest from the date of maturity i.e 1.12.2001 till realization, Rs.10,000/- as compensation for damage and mental agony suffered by the complainant at the deficient conduct and deficiency of service of the opposite party in adjusting the said deposit amount to the loan account OSL. PMRY 6/96 and Rs.1,000/- as costs of this case within a month of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation corrected by, us pronounced in the Open Court this the 31st day of January, 2005.
Sd/-
Sd/- PRESIDENT sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
Before the District Forum: Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Friday the 13th day of May, 2005
C.D.No.97/2004
K.Narasimhulu,
S/o. Late Sugaiah,
R/o. H.No. 9/87, Road No.2,
Lakshmi Nagar Colony,
Kothapet,
Hyderabad. . . . Complainant represented by his counsel
Sri P.Prahalada Reddy
-Vs-
1. The Manager,
L.I.C of India,
Divisional Office,
Jeevan Prakash,
College Road,
Cuddapah.
2. The Senior Branch Manager,
L.I.C of India,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party No.1& 2 represented by their
Counsel Sri I.Anantha Rama Sastry.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite parties to pay monthly pension of Rs. 4,141/- per month from 28.2.2004, Rs. 50,000/- as damages for with holding the payment, cost of the case and any such other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant case is that the complainant has taken a Jeevan Suraksha Pension Plan Policy bearing No. 631935590 from opposite parties by paying premium of Rs. 10,000/- and determent period of 122-7 on 28.2.1997 and last date of premium was 28.2.2003. In the policy it is clearly mentioned at column 3 on first page that amount of monthly pension (annuity) Rs. 4,141/- per month. The complainant after retirement claimed the sum mentioned in the policy and also got issued legal notice dt 10.5.2004 to the opposite parties demanding for payment of said amount apart from damages. The opposite parties did not comply the said demand and gave reply with lame excuses. Therefore, the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- for illegal with holding of amount, hence, there arises deficiency of service on part of opposite parties.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents Viz (1) Policy No. 651935590 dt 28.2.1997 relating to the complainant along with conditions (2) Legal notice dt 10.5.2004 issued by counsel to the opposite parties and (3) reply notice dt 21.5.2004 given by opposite parties to the counsel of complaint, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint avernemnts and caused interrogatories to the opposite party No.1.
4. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite parties appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case, the opposite party No.1 filed written version as defence and opposite party No.2 filed adoption memo adopting the written version of opposite party No.1.
5. The written version of opposite parties admit the complainant has taken a Jeevan Surakash Pension Plan policy bearing No. 651935590. The details of the said policy are :-
Date of commencement : 28.02.1997
Table and deferment period : 122-7
Due date and mode of payment of premium : 28th February Yearly
Installment premium and : Rs. 10,000-00
Notional Cash option : Rs. 1,06,894-00
Amount of monthly pension : Rs. 1048-00 (wrongly printed by
Oversight as Rs. 4141-00 in the
Policy document)
6. It further submits that a Typographical error has crept in at the time of issual of said policy, by over sight the monthly pension payable was typed as Rs. 4,141/- instead of Rs. 1,048/- and the said mistake was brought to the notice of the complainant vide their letter dt 24.3.2004, there is no malafide intention on part of opposite parties to change the pension now as it is only an unnoticed mistake. As per the calculations for yearly premium of Rs. 10,000/- for 7 years for a person of 52 years, the pension payable works out to be of Rs. 1,048/- only, as per the prospects of the said policy.
7. The opposite parties further submits the complainant opted to pay Rs. 10,000/- per annum for 7years. Hence, the Notional Cash option works out to Rs. 1,06,894/- (1,000/93.55x10,000/-), pension per annum payable monthly for a Notional cash option of Rs. 1,000/- as per option D comes to Rs. 117-70 for age retirement age of 59, therefore the pension works out to Rs. 1,048/- only (1,06,894/1,000X117.70/12).
8. It lastly submits that it is not fair to have un lawful gain out of genuine mistake on part of opposite parties which was sincerely regretted and the complainant paid total amount of Rs. 70,000/- only for 7 years and a pension of Rs. 4,141/- per month is guide unimaginable and therefore seeks for the dismissal of complaint and direct the complainant to accept the pension cheques for an amount of Rs. 1,048/- only from 28.12.2004.
9. In support of its case the opposite party relied on the following documents Viz (1) Jeevan Suraksha policy with terminal bonus and with life cover of policy No. 651935590 of complainant and (2) LIC of Jeevan Suraksha, a pension scheme book (Page No.6), besides to the sworn affidavit of the opposite party No.1 in reiteration of its written version as defence and the above documents are marked as Ex B.1 &B.2 for its appreciation in this case.
10. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties:-
11. It is the case of the complainant that he has taken a Jeevan Suraksha Pension Plan policy bearing No. 631935590 from opposite parties by paying yearly premium of Rs. 10,000/- for 7 years and pension payable after retirement as per the policy issued is Rs. 4,141/- per month (as mentioned in the policy bond). But as against to it the written version of opposite parties submits that the said Jeevan Suraksha Policy issued in favour of the complainant, for payment monthly pension of Rs. 1,048/- only and not Rs. 4,141/- as incorrectly mentioned in the policy bond. It is submitted by opposite parties that seven yearly premiums of Rs. 10,000/- as per table and term 122-7, which was in force at the relevant time of the said policy was paid by the complainant. The age of the complainant at the time of taking the said policy was 52 years and the policy was for a term of 7 years. On payment of 7 yearly premiums for this purpose reliance was placed on table and term 122-7 of Jeevan Suraksha Pension Plan policy. Which provides that pension payable per month at the time of retirement (i.e at 59 years) for Notional Cash option of Rs. 1,000/- as per option D of the said policy comes to Rs. 117-70 ps for age of 59 years, therefore pension works out of Rs. 1,048/- per month only.
12. The Ex A.1 Insurance Policy bearing No. 631935590 dt 28.2.1997, it envisages the table and deferment period is 122-7, amount of monthly pension (annuity) Rs. 4,141/-, installment premium and Notional cash option Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 1,06,894/- respectively and date of first pension installment is from 28.2.2004. However, considering the facts in the written version and sworn affidavit of opposite parties, it is apparent that instead of Rs. 1,048/- it is evident that by apparent mistake Rs. 4,141/- is mentioned in pension payment column. The complainant paid yearly premium of Rs. 10,000/- for the Jeevan Suraksha Plan for the period of 7 years totaling Rs. 70,000/- which is admittedly paid by the complainant. Hence, a Typographical error in mentioning wrong amount in the pension column would not entail the complainant to receive the said amount, therefore, the parties to the agreement are not entitled to get benefits of aparent mistakes. In a contract of Insurance there is a requirement of ‘Uberrima fides’ i.e utmost good faith on part of the assured as per the decision of National commission in 2004 (3) ALT Pg 4 between Satya Deo Malviya Vs LIC of Inida. Moreover in the policy itself, in bold letters, it is mentioned that you are requested to examine this policy and if any mistake be found there in return it immediately for correction.
13. In the circumstances discussed above as per the table and term122-7, the complainant is remaining entitled to receive the pension of Rs. 1,048/- only. As stated above the policy was taken on 28.2.1997 and the date of first pension payment installment is from 28.2.2004. Admittedly the said policy is for a period of 7 years with yearly premium of Rs. 10,000/- and Notional Cash option of Rs. 1,06,894/- and monthly pension for Notional cash option of Rs. 1,000/- as per option D comes to Rs. 117.70 ps only for age of 59 years which works out to Rs. 1,048/- only and not Rs. 4,141/- as mentioned in the policy bond.
14. To sum up, the arrears of Rs. 1,048/- per month is to be paid by the opposite parties with 12% interest per annum as in the case of recurring deposits. As the opposite parties except averring its readiness to pay the said amount did not made any positive endeavor to that effect, either tendering the said amount directly to the complainant or in case of refusal of the complainant to receive the same by seeking permission of Forum for its deposit to the credit of this case.
15. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to pay Rs. 1,048/- to the complainant as monthly pension regularly and to pay so far monthly pension of Rs. 1,048/- with 12% per annum as in the case of recurring deposits to the complainant along with Rs. 500/- as costs of this case within a month of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the dictation corrected by us pronounced in the Open Court this the 13th day of May, 2005.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant For the opposite parties
-Nil- -Nil-
List of Exhibits Marked
For the complainant For the opposite parties
Ex A.1 Policy No. 651935590 Ex B.1 Jeevan Suraksha policy with
Dt 28.2.1997 relating to the complainant Terminal Bonus and with life cover of
along with conditions. policy No. 651935590 of complainant.
Ex A.2 Legal notice dt 10.5.2004 issued Ex B.2 LIC Jeevan Suraksha, A Pension
by counsel to the opposite parties. Scheme-Book.
Ex A.3 Reply notice dt 21.5.2004
given by opposite parties to the counsel
of complainant.
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
