The Senior Manager V/S Mythra - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

cc/08/2847

Mythra - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Senior Manager - Opp.Party(s)

21 Mar 2009

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. cc/08/2847

Mythra						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Senior Manager						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 29.12.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 21st MARCH 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2847/2008 COMPLAINANT Smt. Mythra, D/o. M.H. Gangadhar, Aged about 49 years, R/o No. 37 (3), II Floor, I Main Road, 16th Cross, Sampangiramnagara, Bangalore 560 027. Advocate (Keshav) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Senior Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, St. Marks Road Branch, Oriental Building, I Floor, M.G. Road, Bangalore 560 001. Advocate (S. Ashok) 2. The Chief Manager, Indian Bank, New Thippasandra Branch, No. 622, 80 ft. Road, 12th Main, HAL II Stage, Bangalore 560 008. Advocate (V.B. Ravi Shanker) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settle the insurance claim and pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant took two LIC money back policies from OP.1. She is regular in making payments of the premium through her salary. Her employer used to deduct the premium and sent it OP.1. After lapse of 5 years she was expecting money back, but somehow OP.1 failed to comply its promise as per the terms of the policy. On insistence and enquiry complainant came to know that the said policies are assigned to OP.2 and the survival benefit due after 5 years pertaining to both the policies is paid to OP.2 by OP.1 and the policies are surrendered. This unilateral act of the OPs inter-se has caused her both mental agony and financial loss to her. At no point of time she has consented either for the assignment or surrendering of the said policy. Of course her husband N. Srinivasan has also availed a personal loan of Rs.25,000/- during the year 2002 from OP.2 and complainants stood as a guarantor. He took voluntary retirement on 15.11.2004 and requested the OP to collect the premium from his VRS amount, but it was not done. On the other hand OP.2 insisted the complainant to pay the entire due, not only that it filed a small cause suit No. 1231/2005. Being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP complainant got issued the legal notice. Again there was no response. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP.1 filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. It is specifically contended by the OP.1 that the complainant has assigned the said policies under the assignment notice dated 02.06.2000 in favour of OP.2. Under such circumstances OP.2 accrued the legal right, whatever the amount payable under each policy that is to the tune of Rs.20,000/- has been paid to OP.2 by OP.1. Then OP.1 in pursuance of the surrender value of the two policies it was also paid accordingly. So there is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP.1. From 23.05.2005 no premium is deducted from the salary of the complainant. Complainant though aware of all these facts, suppressed to mention the same in her complaint. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. OP.2 filed the separate version mainly contending that the present complaint is barred by time. As the complainant failed to make payment of the amount in due in pursuance of the loan availed by her husband to which complainant stood as a guarantor, a small cause suit was filed. The so called policies were surrendered in the year 2004 itself. Complainant knew about surrendering of the said policies to the OP. Hence the question of receiving the amount does not arise for consideration. As the polices were assigned by the complainant for the loan availed by her husband and as they did not discharge their liability OP.2 exercised its lien over the said policies and recovered the amount in due. That act of the OP.2 cannot be termed as deficiency in service. In fact Bank has sent notice to the complainant before surrendering of the said policies, there was no response. There is no obligation on the part of the employer to recover the dues from the terminal benefits like VRS payments. Hence that question does not arise at all. After adjusting the amount collected through the policies for the remaining balance suit is filed and that amount is also recovered. Under such circumstances the complaint is devoid of merits. Hence OP.2 also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant took LIC money back policy from OP.1 and made payment of the premium through her salary. Her employer used to deduct the LIC premium from her salary and sent it to OP.1. After the 5 years complainant expected the money back OP.1, failed to discharge its obligation. On enquiry complainant came to know that the said policies are alleged to have been assigned in favour of OP.2 and the survival benefits and other dues payable under policies is paid to the OP.2, that too without the consent of the complainant. The assignment and the surrendering of the said polices is not brought to the notice of the complainant. Under such circumstances complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 8. As against this it is specifically contended by OP.1 that the complainant vide assignment note 02.06.2000 assigned the said policies in favour of OP.2. The document to that effect is produced. Though complainant is aware of the said fact, unfortunately she failed to mention the same in her complaint. So there is a suppression of material fact by the complainant to the reasons best known to her. It is further stated by OP.1 as per the policy conditions Rs.20,000/- is paid to OP.2 in pursuance of the absolute right accrued by OP.2 in view of the assignment and than surrendered value of the two policies was also paid. In our considered view the action initiated by the OPs is well within the purview of the documents deeds executed by the complainant. When that is so, she cannot allege the deficiency in service on the part of OP.1. 9. According to the complainant she stood as a guarantor to the loan availed by her husband N. Srinivasan from OP.2, N. Srinivasan took VRS in November 2004, then she requested the OP to recover whatever the balance in due from his VRS benefits, but it is not done. On the other hand OP.2 filed a small cause suit against her at SC No. 1231/2005 for the recovery of the Rs.11,737/-. Under such circumstances she felt the deficiency in service on the part of OP.2 also. Though complainant is aware of the filing of the said suit surrendering of the policies, assignment, etc., by the end of 2004 and 2005, but still what made her to keep mum up to December 2008 to initiate this complaint is not known. We find there is a substance in the defence of the OP.2 that there is a delay in filing this complaint and that delay is not satisfactorily explained. 10. According to OP.2 after collecting the surrender value and the amount payable under the said two policies, still complainant is in due of Rs.11,000/- and odd. That is the reason why they filed the small cause suit for the recovery of the same and it came to be compromised. All these acts and deeds of the complainant speak loudly about her direct involvement and her knowledge with regard to assignment of the policies. Her obligations as a guarantor are established, still alleges deficiency in service against the OP. The fact that the husband of the complainant did not discharge his liabilities to OP.2 is rather established. We also find force in the contention of the OP that the employer of the complainant or her husbands employer are not obliged to recover the dues of OP.2 bank from the terminal benefit of the VRS and the pay. The fact that before initiating such legal action, OP.2 issued the notice to the complainant is also established. It also speaks to the intimation sent to the complainant about surrendering of the policies. 11. It is further contended by OP.2 that it is not only the husband of the complainant who availed Rs.25,000/- loan, but it is the complainant also and husband and wife acted as guarantors mutually agreed to repay the same in an EMI with interest, but they failed to do so. After the assignment of the policies and surrendering of the policies whatever the amount that is payable by OP.1 is received by OP.2 and it was adjusted to the loan account of husband of the complainant, but still there was a balance of Rs.11,737/-. Hence a small cause suit is filed. The liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor and as the complainant has assigned her policies to OP.2 it has surrendered the policies to OP.1 and recovered the dues. That act of the OP.2 cannot be termed as deficiency in service. 12. Viewed from any angle, the complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Considering the complicated facts and complex question of law it entailed it would require a volumeness evidence for its disposal, which is not possible for this Forum to go into all these aspects in its summary jurisdiction. If the complainant is so advised, she can file a comprehensive Civil Suit and redress her grievance if any. With these observations as we find there is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 21st day of March 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 29.12.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 21st MARCH 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2847/2008 COMPLAINANT Smt. Mythra, D/o. M.H. Gangadhar, Aged about 49 years, R/o No. 37 (3), II Floor, I Main Road, 16th Cross, Sampangiramnagara, Bangalore 560 027. Advocate (Keshav) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Senior Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, St. Marks Road Branch, Oriental Building, I Floor, M.G. Road, Bangalore 560 001. Advocate (S. Ashok) 2. The Chief Manager, Indian Bank, New Thippasandra Branch, No. 622, 80 ft. Road, 12th Main, HAL II Stage, Bangalore 560 008. Advocate (V.B. Ravi Shanker) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settle the insurance claim and pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant took two LIC money back policies from OP.1. She is regular in making payments of the premium through her salary. Her employer used to deduct the premium and sent it OP.1. After lapse of 5 years she was expecting money back, but somehow OP.1 failed to comply its promise as per the terms of the policy. On insistence and enquiry complainant came to know that the said policies are assigned to OP.2 and the survival benefit due after 5 years pertaining to both the policies is paid to OP.2 by OP.1 and the policies are surrendered. This unilateral act of the OPs inter-se has caused her both mental agony and financial loss to her. At no point of time she has consented either for the assignment or surrendering of the said policy. Of course her husband N. Srinivasan has also availed a personal loan of Rs.25,000/- during the year 2002 from OP.2 and complainants stood as a guarantor. He took voluntary retirement on 15.11.2004 and requested the OP to collect the premium from his VRS amount, but it was not done. On the other hand OP.2 insisted the complainant to pay the entire due, not only that it filed a small cause suit No. 1231/2005. Being fed up with the hostile attitude of the OP complainant got issued the legal notice. Again there was no response. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP.1 filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. It is specifically contended by the OP.1 that the complainant has assigned the said policies under the assignment notice dated 02.06.2000 in favour of OP.2. Under such circumstances OP.2 accrued the legal right, whatever the amount payable under each policy that is to the tune of Rs.20,000/- has been paid to OP.2 by OP.1. Then OP.1 in pursuance of the surrender value of the two policies it was also paid accordingly. So there is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP.1. From 23.05.2005 no premium is deducted from the salary of the complainant. Complainant though aware of all these facts, suppressed to mention the same in her complaint. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. OP.2 filed the separate version mainly contending that the present complaint is barred by time. As the complainant failed to make payment of the amount in due in pursuance of the loan availed by her husband to which complainant stood as a guarantor, a small cause suit was filed. The so called policies were surrendered in the year 2004 itself. Complainant knew about surrendering of the said policies to the OP. Hence the question of receiving the amount does not arise for consideration. As the polices were assigned by the complainant for the loan availed by her husband and as they did not discharge their liability OP.2 exercised its lien over the said policies and recovered the amount in due. That act of the OP.2 cannot be termed as deficiency in service. In fact Bank has sent notice to the complainant before surrendering of the said policies, there was no response. There is no obligation on the part of the employer to recover the dues from the terminal benefits like VRS payments. Hence that question does not arise at all. After adjusting the amount collected through the policies for the remaining balance suit is filed and that amount is also recovered. Under such circumstances the complaint is devoid of merits. Hence OP.2 also prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant took LIC money back policy from OP.1 and made payment of the premium through her salary. Her employer used to deduct the LIC premium from her salary and sent it to OP.1. After the 5 years complainant expected the money back OP.1, failed to discharge its obligation. On enquiry complainant came to know that the said policies are alleged to have been assigned in favour of OP.2 and the survival benefits and other dues payable under policies is paid to the OP.2, that too without the consent of the complainant. The assignment and the surrendering of the said polices is not brought to the notice of the complainant. Under such circumstances complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 8. As against this it is specifically contended by OP.1 that the complainant vide assignment note 02.06.2000 assigned the said policies in favour of OP.2. The document to that effect is produced. Though complainant is aware of the said fact, unfortunately she failed to mention the same in her complaint. So there is a suppression of material fact by the complainant to the reasons best known to her. It is further stated by OP.1 as per the policy conditions Rs.20,000/- is paid to OP.2 in pursuance of the absolute right accrued by OP.2 in view of the assignment and than surrendered value of the two policies was also paid. In our considered view the action initiated by the OPs is well within the purview of the documents deeds executed by the complainant. When that is so, she cannot allege the deficiency in service on the part of OP.1. 9. According to the complainant she stood as a guarantor to the loan availed by her husband N. Srinivasan from OP.2, N. Srinivasan took VRS in November 2004, then she requested the OP to recover whatever the balance in due from his VRS benefits, but it is not done. On the other hand OP.2 filed a small cause suit against her at SC No. 1231/2005 for the recovery of the Rs.11,737/-. Under such circumstances she felt the deficiency in service on the part of OP.2 also. Though complainant is aware of the filing of the said suit surrendering of the policies, assignment, etc., by the end of 2004 and 2005, but still what made her to keep mum up to December 2008 to initiate this complaint is not known. We find there is a substance in the defence of the OP.2 that there is a delay in filing this complaint and that delay is not satisfactorily explained. 10. According to OP.2 after collecting the surrender value and the amount payable under the said two policies, still complainant is in due of Rs.11,000/- and odd. That is the reason why they filed the small cause suit for the recovery of the same and it came to be compromised. All these acts and deeds of the complainant speak loudly about her direct involvement and her knowledge with regard to assignment of the policies. Her obligations as a guarantor are established, still alleges deficiency in service against the OP. The fact that the husband of the complainant did not discharge his liabilities to OP.2 is rather established. We also find force in the contention of the OP that the employer of the complainant or her husbands employer are not obliged to recover the dues of OP.2 bank from the terminal benefit of the VRS and the pay. The fact that before initiating such legal action, OP.2 issued the notice to the complainant is also established. It also speaks to the intimation sent to the complainant about surrendering of the policies. 11. It is further contended by OP.2 that it is not only the husband of the complainant who availed Rs.25,000/- loan, but it is the complainant also and husband and wife acted as guarantors mutually agreed to repay the same in an EMI with interest, but they failed to do so. After the assignment of the policies and surrendering of the policies whatever the amount that is payable by OP.1 is received by OP.2 and it was adjusted to the loan account of husband of the complainant, but still there was a balance of Rs.11,737/-. Hence a small cause suit is filed. The liability of the guarantor is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor and as the complainant has assigned her policies to OP.2 it has surrendered the policies to OP.1 and recovered the dues. That act of the OP.2 cannot be termed as deficiency in service. 12. Viewed from any angle, the complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Considering the complicated facts and complex question of law it entailed it would require a volumeness evidence for its disposal, which is not possible for this Forum to go into all these aspects in its summary jurisdiction. If the complainant is so advised, she can file a comprehensive Civil Suit and redress her grievance if any. With these observations as we find there is no proof of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 21st day of March 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.