By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The facts of the case are that the complainant had taken a housing loan from the 1st respondent by account No.20004337. The entire transactions of the loan were done at the office of 2nd respondent. The loan amount was Rs.2,00,000/- and the EMI fixed was Rs.2920. The complainant had been paid the loan amount regularly. Meanwhile on 13.12.05 the LIC policy amount due to complainant for Rs.34,050/- was sent to 1st respondent from the LIC branch. The 1st respondent had accepted the same. Since the complainant had been remitted the EMI regularly the first respondent should return the cheque to complainant. Even after repeated demands this did not do. In addition to that the respondents had been charged one EMI more from the complainant. Even after reducing the rate of interest to 8.75% the EMI amount did not reduce by respondents. So a lawyer notice was issued. These acts of respondents were deficiency in service. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments of 2nd respondent are that this respondent is not aware of the terms and conditions under which a housing loan has been availed of by the complainant from 1st respondent, which is a public limited company and separate institution. The averment in the complaint that the loan transaction completed at the office of 2nd respondent is untrue and baseless. This respondent has no such business activities. It is admitted that the complainant had taken a money back policy for sum assured Rs.25,000/-. The complainant had on 14.12.98 absolutely assigned the policy to 1st respondent transferring all his rights, title and interest in the said policy to 1st respondent in consideration of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- advanced to the complainant by 1st respondent on mortgage of the complainant’s property. The assignment was registered and intimated to complainant vide letter dated 18.12.98. The policy matured on 28.12.05 and since the policy was assigned to 1st respondent the maturity payment of Rs.34,050/- was made on 13.12.05 to the assignee on receipt of the original policy document for cancellation and the discharge form dated 20.9.05 duly executed by 1st respondent. The survival benefit of Rs.6250/- under the terms of the money back policy had been paid to complainant against his discharge dated 28.11.1995 and declaration duly signed by him. The subsequent survival benefit of Rs.6250/- after 5 years from the first survival benefit and after the assignment of the policy in December 1998 was paid to 1st respondent on 9.1.01 against their discharge dated 17.11.2000. No objections were raised at that time by complainant. The complainant was well aware about the assignment. This respondent has acted as per law. This respondent has not received any lawyer notice. This respondent is not aware of the procedures followed by the 1st respondent under the housing loan scheme and is not competent to comment on the interest, EMI etc. This respondent is an unnecessary party to this complaint. Hence dismiss.
3. The 1st respondent remained exparte.
4. The points for consideration are:
(1) Was there any deficiency in service from respondents?
(2) If so, reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence consists of oral testimony of PW1, Exts. P1 to P3 and Exts. R1 to R7.
6. Points: The complaint is filed against adjustment of LIC policy amount towards the housing loan taken by complainant and also to get back the excess EMI charged from complainant. It is the case that the complainant had taken a housing loan from 1st respondent for Rs.2,00,000/-. According to him, he had been paying the loan amount regularly and meanwhile the 2nd respondent assigned the LIC policy amount which had been matured to 1st respondent towards the loan taken by complainant. According to the complainant this act of the respondents is illegal.
7. The 2nd respondent filed its counter and stated that as per the assignment executed by complainant the policy matured amount had been transferred to 1st respondent. On 14.12.98 the complainant had absolutely assigned the policy to 1st respondent by transferring all his rights, title and interest in consideration of the loan amount. Exts. R1 to R3 are the evidence supporting the same. Ext. R1 is the assignment deed by which the complainant had been assigned in favour of 1st respondent all his rights, title and interest in the said policy. During examination as PW1 he also admitted the same. So the case of complainant in the complaint that the transfer of the policy amount is deficiency in service and illegal is found incorrect. He seeks the matured amount of Rs.34,050/- with 10.25% from the respondents. But he not at all entitled for this amount on the basis of Ext. R1 assignment deed.
8. It is the case of complainant that one EMI in addition to the usual EMIs had been taken by 1st respondent. But there is no evidence to show that additional EMI for Rs.2920/- had been taken by 1st respondent. There is no evidence on which month or on which date one additional EMI had taken by 1st respondent. He has produced Exts. P1 to P3 documents in support of his case. There is no evidence with regard to the total EMI which had been paid by complainant. In the box also no evidence brought. In the complaint it is vaguely averred one additional EMI had taken by 1st respondent. Since there is no evidence, the complainant is not entitled to get back the same.
9. It is also the case of complainant that the interest rate for loan had been reduced to 8.75% and still this benefit had not been enjoyed by him. It is his contention that even if the interest rate has been reduced it is not reduced in the rate of EMI. The period of reduction of interest rate is also not available from the records. He has produced Ext. P1 statement out of which it can be seen that the interest was floating. As per Ext. P1 the rate of interest was 8.75%. The term for repayment of loan stated as 14 years. But Ext. P1 would show the statement of accounts during the year 2006 only. There is nothing to show the entire details of the loan. The complainant can very well take steps to call for the details from 1st respondent. It is not done. There is absence of evidence to establish the case. In the box the complainant admitted that no relief is sought against 2nd respondent. There is no evidence against 1st respondent also. In the circumstances the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
10. In the result the complaint stands dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 8th day of December 2011.
