BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.307/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 6^th July 2018

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

                     2) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                B.E., LLB., PGDCLP   - MEMBER

Sri H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY,

President

1.     This complaint is filed for a direction to the opposite parties to return the documents with No Due Certificate and also to refund excess amount collected i.e. Rs.97,532/- with interest at 20% with compensation and costs of the proceedings.
2.     The brief facts alleged in the complaint are that the complainant availed a loan of Rs.25,78,248/- from opposite parties on 06.12.2004 through the agent by name H.C.Kumar.  As per the instructions of opposite parties, the complainant surrendered all the documents relating to the property with all LIC policies as collateral security.  The EMI was paid by the complainant through bank account of the salary of the complainant.  Opposite parties agent by name H.C.Kumar instructed the complainant to open a fresh personal life policy stating that it is a must for loan.  The said H.C.Kumar who then coordinated the complete process of loan procurement and sanction.  As per the instructions of H.C.kumar, the complainant took the life insurance policy.  There was no need for availing the separate fresh personal life policy, as the complainant was a government employee and he was forced to avail the personal life insurance policy by the opposite parties.  The sum assured for the said policy is Rs.97,532/- from 31.03.2005 till clearance of the loan.  The opposite parties have collected policy premium for a period of 12 years i.e. Rs.97,532/- without providing bonds to the complainant.  Forcibly, the opposite parties insisted the complainant to get the policy.  The complainant approached the opposite parties and their representative to cancel the policy and also to return the amount collected.  But, till today, the opposite parties did not pay the sum.  Thereby, a letter was sent on 28.06.2017 asking the opposite parties to settle the matter and also to stop collecting the premium amount from his account.  But, there is no response.  Thereby, complainant stopped payment of premium for the month of July and August, as a result, the complainant was made to pay penalty of Rs.3,000/-.  There is no reply to the legal notice.  But, complainant has cleared the loan amount availed by him with interest as well as personal life insurance policy amount on 08.09.2017.  The opposite parties did not issue No Due Certificate and documents are not returned.  Hence, this complaint is filed.
3.     Both opposite parties appeared and filed the following version:- It is admitted that the opposite party No.1 has sanctioned loan of Rs.25,78,248/-.  But, it is false to allege that the loan was sanctioned through their agent H.C.Kumar.  Whereas, the said agent H.C.Kumar was only an introducer of the complainant as customer to the opposite party No.1.  Loan was sanctioned on 06.12.2004.  It is admitted that the original documents pertaining to the house property with personal LIC bonds are deposited to availing the loan.  After maturity of the said LIC bonds have been returned to the complainant.  It is open option to the complainant to get the LIC policy i.e. group insurance policy, the opposite parties did not insisted him to do the same.  It is admitted that the sum assured over the policy has been collected along with EMI of the loan repayment since it is a group insurance policy scheme having insured the group people working at the University of Mysuru, the bonds cannot be issued to the individual policy holder.  After lapse of 12 years, having insured under the good scheme of group insurance with total risk coverage and at the ending time of closing of the loan account, the complainant has sent a letter to the opposite party No.1 asking them to settle the matter and also to stop collecting the said premium amount from his account is highly immoral and not at all acceptable, it is an illegal demand made by the complainant.   
4.     After clearance of the loan by the complainant on 08.09.2017, the original documents are obtained back from Head Office at Bangalore on 16.10.2017, the same has been intimated to the complainant on 17.10.2017, till today the complainant has not collected the original documents. The complainant himself has voluntarily opted for group insurance by giving an application to the LIC of India on 17.03.2006 with medical report.  Thereby, there is no option for the return of policy amount after completion of the liability, it is the single premium on the policy collected by the LIC.  LIC is a necessary party to the proceedings.  The complaint is barred by limitation.  As such, opposite parties sought for dismissal of the complaint.
5.    On the above contention, this matter is set down for evidence.  During evidence, on behalf of complainant, he has filed his affidavit evidence and further evidence closed.  On behalf of opposite parties, one Arun Kumar, Area manager has filed the affidavit evidence and further evidence closed.  After hearing arguments, this matter is set down for orders.   
6.    The points arose for our consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant establishes that there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties in not refunding the premium collected towards group insurance or in not returning the document’s or in not issuing No Due Certificate, thereby the complainant is entitled for the reliefs?
2.  What order?

7.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- In the negative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.    Point No.1:- It is the contention of the complainant that forcibly he was made to policy holder of group insurance scheme.  It is fraudulent act committed by the opposite parties and their agent one H.C.Kumar.  But, this has been denied by the opposite parties and contention of opposite parties, it is a voluntary act on the part of complainant in opting group insurance scheme along with other employees of Mysuru University.  It is not in dispute that the opposite parties collected premium from complainant from 2006 itself.  Whereas, the complainant after closure of the loan in 2017, has come up with the complaint alleging that he has not voluntarily opted for group insurance.  On the other hand, it is the mischief played by agent of the opposite parties to pay the premium towards group insurance.  But, the said contention of the complainant cannot be accepted, since the complainant was silent for more than 12 years and paid the premium along with EMIs.  Thereby, allegations of the complainant that he was made to pay the amount towards group insurance policy by H.C.kumar mischievously cannot be accepted.
9.    Admittedly, the complainant has cleared the loan on 08.09.2017.  It is the contention of opposite parties that the documents are in opposite party No.1 office at Bangalore.  Thereby, the opposite party No.2 has got the documents on 16.10.2017 and accordingly intimation was given to the complainant to collect the documents by means of letter dated 17.10.2017 i.e. prior to date of filing of this complaint.  In spite of it, the complainant has brought this complaint alleging that he was forced to join the group insurance, the opposite parties failed to return the documents and failed to issue No Due Certificate to him.  As such, allegations of the complainant are baseless which cannot be accepted.  On the other hand, when the loan is cleared after lapse of 12 years, the complainant was sleeping over his right relating to collection of premium towards group insurance policy and raised his voice only at the fag end of clearing the loan and submitted a letter for return of documents on 18.09.2017, immediately after repayment of the loan on 08.09.2017. Immediately, that was received by the opposite parties and letter was sent to the complainant.  Thereby, this Forum finds that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled for relief particularly for refund of the premium collected towards group insurance.  On the other hand, since the opposite parties admitted that the documents are received from opposite parties, the complainant is at liberty to collect the said documents and opposite parties are also liable to issue No Due Certificate relating to the loan account of the complainant.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered in the negative.
10. Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, the complainant though not entitled for any reliefs, but the opposite parties are liable to be directed to return the original documents to the complainant relating to the house property and also to issue No Due Certificate to the loan account of the complainant.   Hence, we pass the following order:-

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is dismissed. 
2. However, opposite parties are hereby directed to return all the original documents relating to the house property of the complainant which are offered as collateral security and also directed to issue No Due Certificate relating to loan account of the complainant in 45 days from the date of this order.  Failing which, the opposite parties shall pay penalty of Rs.100/- per day to the complainant till compliance.
3. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(