Per Mr. S.R. Khanzode, Hon’ble Judicial Member :
This appeal is directed against the order dated 14.12.2009 passed in consumer complaint No. 239/2007, Shri Umesh M. Ganmukhi V/s L.I.C. Housing Finance Ltd. passed by the South Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai (the Forum in short). Undisputed facts are that the respondent/original complainant Shri Umesh M. Ganmukhi (hereinafter referred to as a complainant) had taken housing loan from appellant No. 1 M/s LIC Housing Finance Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as a Financial Institution). While taking said housing loan, the Insurance Policy was assigned in favour of the Financial Institution by way of security. One of such policy bearing No. 073648757 got matured on 20.8.2005 and its maturity amount `41,925/- was directly credited in the loan account of the complainant.
It is the grievance of the complainant that LIC of India ought to have paid that maturity amount to him since he had paid all the instalments of housing loan promptly and in time as and when fell due and was not in arrears at that point of time when this amount was credited in his loan account. At the second instance, it is submitted on behalf of the complainant that in any case, before crediting the amount of maturity of policy in his loan account, he ought to have been informed by LIC of India. Consumer complaint alleging such deficiency was filed against the financial institution. LIC of India was not a party. The Forum decreed the claim directing the financial institution to refund the amount of `17,998/- alongwith interest w.e.f. 28.12.2005 i.e. the amount which is admitted by the financial institution as an amount in excess got credited and further showed its willingness to refund the same as per letter dated 27.3.2007. Admittedly, this amount is yet to be actually refunded. It is submitted on behalf of the financial institution that said amount is remained to be refunded since the complainant was insisting for refund of entire amount of the maturity value of the policy which got credited to his loan account.
Admitted and heard forthwith with the consent of both parties.
The factual matrix as narrated above is not in dispute by either of the parties. It is also not disputed that the insurance policy, the maturity value of which was credited in the loan account of the complainant, was assigned by the complainant in favour of the financial institution. The grievance of the complainant is that before accepting such credit received from the LIC of India, the LIC of India ought to have informed him. It is also submitted at the time of argument that the financial institution also ought to have intimated him before crediting that amount in the loan account. Since the policy was already assigned, crediting the amount received against the maturity amount of the policy to the extent amount due from the complainant in the loan account cannot be faulted with. The excess amount of `14,833.18 in those circumstances ought to have been either refunded to the complainant giving particulars of appropriation against the dues. Though later on by letter dated 27.3.2007, the financial institution admitted that amount of `14,833.18 was left in credit after the then dues were adjusted in the loan account. They admit the situation but did not refund that amount since the complainant was demanding refund of entire amount received on maturity. Therefore, the liability of the financial institution in terms of compensation for alleged deficiency in service could be restricted to that extent and these aspects are properly considered by the Forum. Similarly, in view of the fact that the complainant was all the while writing to the financial institution and till 27.3.2007, the financial institution even did not reply it. We find an award of compensation of `25,000/- for mental torture as per the impugned order also cannot be faulted with. Thus, finding the appeal devoid of any substance, we pass the following order :
O R D E R
Appeal stands dismissed. Under the circumstances, both the parties to bear their costs. At this state, Ld. Counsel for appellant requested for keeping this order in abeyance for 45 days. Request granted.
Pronounced dated 11th August 2011.
