This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on                     08-06-11 in the presence of Sri Sk. Rahamtulla, advocate for the complainant and of Sri D.V. Sai Nath, advocate for opposite party                        upon perusing the material on record after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking a direction to the opposite party for return of LIC policy bearing No.672057163, Rs.25,000/- towards damages and Rs.10,000/- towards costs.

2.     In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

On 05-08-02 the complainant availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite party.   On 09-09-06 the opposite party advised the complainant to assign her insurance policy in favour of opposite party.  The complainant discharged the entire loan by 23-12-06.  Inspite of repeated requests the opposite party did not return the insurance policy on the ground of misplacement and not traceable.  The complainant also got issued registered notice on 25-11-09.  The opposite party though received notice kept quite.  Due to indifferent attitude of the opposite party  the complainant suffered a lot mentally.  The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The contention of the opposite party in brief is hereunder:-

The complainant assigned her life insurance policy bearing No. 672057163 in favour of opposite party at the time of sanctioning the loan itself.   On discharge of the loan the opposite party handed over the insurance policy to the complainant duly canceling the assignment.  The complainant might have misplaced the insurance policy.   The complainant in 2008 paid Rs.10,000/- towards premium.   If the assignment was in favour of the opposite party even after 2006 was true the amount would have been paid to the Bank, that itself shows that the policy was returned to the complainant.   The opposite party did not commit any deficiency of service.   The complainant filed this complaint mischievously.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-8 on behalf of complainant were marked.    No documents were marked on behalf of opposite party.

5.      Now the points that arose for consideration in this case are:

1. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
3. To what relief?

6.   POINTS 1&2:-   The complainant assigning policy in favour of the opposite party is not in dispute.  Therefore when the policy was assigned in favour of the opposite party is not material to decide the point in question.

7.   The contention of the opposite party is that it handed over the policy to the complainant.   The affidavit as well as version of opposite party was silent when it handed over the policy to the complainant.  The burden is on the opposite party to prove that it handed over the policy to the complainant.   In the absence of any evidence the contention of the opposite party cannot be accepted.   It has therefore to be inferred that the opposite party did not return the policy either due to misplacement or unable to trace it.    It therefore amounted to deficiency of service.   Awarding a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards deficiency of service, Rs.1,000/- towards compensation and Rs.500/- towards costs will meet the ends of justice.   Hence, these points are answered accordingly in favour of complainant.

8.  POINT No.3:-     In view of above findings, in the result, the complaint is allowed partly as indicated below:

        1.  The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two                       thousand only) towards deficiency of service.

        2.  The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.1,000/-                       (Rupees one thousand only) towards compensation and                        Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) towards costs.

        3.  The amounts ordered above shall be paid within a period of                         six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

Dictated to junior stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 15th day of June, 2011.        

Sd/-XXX                                   Sd/-XXX                                 Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

  DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite party:         NIL

                                                                                                                        Sd/-XXX

                                                                                PRESIDENT