Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

The complaint case since been allowed in favour of the Complainant, aggrieved with such decision, this Appeal is preferred by the LIC Housing Finance Ltd.

In short, facts of the complaint case are that the Complainant availed of a house building loan from the OP No. 1 which he repaid subsequently.  However, as the OP No. 1 failed and/or neglected to return the original insurance policy bonds, he faced great difficulty in getting the maturity proceeds of those certificates causing great hardship to him.  Hence, the complaint case.

The OP No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that at the time of returning all the original documents relating to the mortgaged loan, the Complainant was duly informed that duplicate policy bonds would be issued to him at the earliest opportunity.  Meanwhile, the maturity proceeds of one of the policies have been sent to the Complainant.  Thus, no cause of action arose against this OP. 

Decision with reasons

On notice, initially the Respondent No. 1 appeared through his Ld. Advocate.  However, subsequently he did not appear before this Commission.  Accordingly, at the time of hearing, only the Ld. Advocates for the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 were heard. I have also perused the documents on record.

It appears that, following misplacement of the relevant original policy bonds, duplicate policy bonds have been issued by the LIC and on the basis of said bonds, the maturity proceeds of one policy was paid while the case was pending before the Ld. District Forum.  I have also noticed that the LIC has also repaid the maturity proceeds of two policies bearing Policy Nos. 410069333 and 410242895.  The maturity date of remaining policy, i.e., Policy No. 413922603 being scheduled on 28-12-2021.  It is submitted by the Respondent No. 2 that the same will also be hononured in due course of time.

On a reference to the impugned order, I find that despite appreciating the fact that the maturity dates of two out of the four policies were not over as on the date of passing of the same, the Forum below directed the Respondent No. 2 to pay the maturity value of those policies within a period of 15 days from the date of passing of the impugned order.  This is not appreciable.  Until and unless a policy gets matured, the Insurance Company has got no liability to pay the maturity sum to the policyholder. 

It is a fact that the Appellant was at fault for misplacing the original policy bonds.  Still, given that remedial steps has already been taken to redress the grievance of the Respondent No. 1, principles of natural justice demands that benefit of doubt be accorded to it.

In view of this, I decline to uphold the decision of the Ld. District Forum.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed ex parte against the Respondent No. 1 and dismissed against the Respondent No. 2.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.