Kerala

StateCommission

A/14/74

THE AREA MANAGER, LIC HOUSING FINANCE LTD - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHAJI - Opp.Party(s)

DINESH SAJAN

25 Aug 2015

ORDER

KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL NO.74/14

JUDGMENT DTD:25/08/15

(Against the order in CC No.126/12 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha, dtd: 18/11/13)

PRESENT

SMT. A. RADHA                            : MEMBER

SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR  : JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SANTHAMMA THOMAS     : MEMBER

 

APPELLANTS

 

1. The Area Manager,

          LIC Housing Finanace Ltd.,

          2^nd Floor, Leela Towers,

          Kesavadasapuram,

          Thiruvananthapuram

 

2. The Divisional Manager,

          LIC Housing Finance Ltd.,

          Thiruvananthapuram

         

          (By Adv. Sri. Dinesh Sajan. K)

 

                                                                                      Vs.

 

RESPONDENTS

 

1. Shaji, S/o. Jayasimhan,

          Pranavam, Krishna Pillai Jn.,

          Aryad North P.O., Alappuzha

 

2. E.V. Matheswari,

          W/o. J.Shaji,

          Pranavam, Krishna Pillai Jn.,

          Aryad North P.O., Alappuzha

 

          (By Adv. Sri. Suresh Kumar)

JUDGMENT

 

SMT.A. RADHA, MEMBER

          Appellants are the opposite parties in CC No.126/12 on the file of CDRF, Alappuzha who preferred this appeal.  The Forum below allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as cost of proceedings.

          2.      The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant availed a loan by depositing 3 original LIC policies as collateral security with the 1^st opposite party.  The loan was closed in 2008.  The complainant requested the 1^st opposite party to return the original policy certificate by letters dated, 21/07/2009, 12/08/2009, 7/12/2009, 09/09/2011 and on 28/01/2012 for which the 1^st opposite party had not responded to the complainant.  The petitioners were constrained to file the complaint before the Ombudsman on 07/03/2012 wherein the complaint dismissed against LIC as it does not come under the purview of Ombudsman.  The legal notice was issued on 13/03/12 to get back the document as well as Rs.50,000/- as compensation from the 1^st opposite party.  The complainant had to visit the 2^nd opposite party at Thiruvananthapuram several times and incurred expenses for travelling.  The complaint is filed to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.31,000/- and also to get back the original policy.  Further prayer is for the loss of 10,000/- incurred against the maturity value of the policy as on 20/08/12 and also 25,000/- as compensation each to the complainants.

          3.      In the version filed by 1^st opposite party the jurisdiction of the consumer forum is challenged.  The loan availed from the LIC Housing Finance Ltd. as a mortgage and deposited 3 LIC policies as collateral security.  It is also admitted that the loan transaction was closed in the year 2009.  The loan transaction was a 2^nd mortgage and on closing the transaction the original documents received from DLFAD had to be returned to them.  It was informed that the complainant can collect the LIC policies from LIC HFL area office at Alappuzha since complainants were residing at Alappuzha.  The complainants never approached the Alappuzha area office nor collected the LIC policies.  The maturity value of one policy fell due on 29/03/2012 and the cheque for Rs.45,040/- was duly collected by complainant.  It is contended that the complainants were reluctant to collect the other 2 policies from Alappuzha area office and thereafter sent the legal notice on 30/03/2012.  The statement of the complainant that he travelled several times to Thiruvananthapuram to collect the original policy is merely to grab unlawful enrichment by filing the case.  The complainants were not ready to approach the Alappuzha office nor signed the necessary documents for settlement of the maturity amount.  The opposite parties had much inconvenience and loss of productivity office hours of the staff.  No loss has incurred to the complainants and the complaint filed for compensation is frivolous in nature.  No deficiency in service occurred on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is only to be dismissed.

          4.      The evidence consisted of the proof affidavit and oral testimony of the 1^st complainant as PW1 and exhibits were marked as A1 to A8. 

          5.      It is argued by the counsel for the appellants that the respondents were reluctant to collect the original documents from Alappuzha area office and the same was forwarded by registered post after releasing the document from Alappuzha office.  Nothing is produced by the complainants that they had incurred travelling expenses to approach the 2^nd opposite party at Thiruvnanthapuram.  The respondents were not willing to approach Alappuzha office and sign the necessary documents for the settlement of maturity amount.  The claim of the complainant is highly exaggerated and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and the complaint is only to be dismissed and the order of the forum is to set aside.  At the appellate stage the appellant produced the communications dated 29/03/2012 sent to the respondents informing that the cheque for Rs.45,040/- is ready as it’s maturity amount and requested for making arrangements to execute the discharge form.  The policy documents were also forwarded to the respondent.

          6.      The arguments put forth by the counsel for the respondent is that the loan was already closed in 2009 and even after several letters sent to the opposite parties were not responded.  It is only in 2012 the original documents returned by the appellants.  The maturity date was in 2009 and the house loan was completely repaid as on 23/06/2009.  The loan was sanctioned on the basis of 2^nd mortgage.   The original deed was returned to the Director of the Local Fund Department who is the custodian of documents relating to Government loans.  The policy certificate assigned for availing loan from LIC HFL have not been reassigned so far and it was not returned.  The respondent had to send legal notice to the 1^st appellant in order to get back the policy certificate.  The legal notice was sent on 12/03/2012 while one of the policy was due to mature on 31/03/2012.   Without the original policy respondents were not in a position to get the matured value of the policy.   Even after closing the loan transaction as early as on 23/06/2009, the appellants were reluctant to return the original policy to the respondents.  The appellant’s argument to the effect that they have already informed the respondents to approach the Alappuzha area office is not evidenced by any document.  Nothing is coming forward to prove the statement of the appellant and it was made merely to suit the case.  Respondents had to wait for around 3 years and that too at the brim of the maturity date of one of the policy.  The appellants forwarded the original documents along with matured amount on 29/03/2012 only.  The respondent had to suffer financial loss towards travelling expense from Alappuzha to Thiruvananthapuram and caused mental agony which is to be compensated appropriately.   

          7.      Heard both sides in detail and had gone through the documents on record. To substantiate the contentions raised by the respondents/complainants that the communications sent to the opposite party were produced as Exts.A2 series.  It is clear from the documents that the loan amount was already closed and the policies were due to be returned to the respondents.  There is nothing on evidence to show that the appellants returned the document before issuing legal notice in 2012.  It is true that the respondent received the documents in March, 2012 and he accepted the maturity claim due to the respondent.   We find that there is inordinate delay in returning the original policy documents even after closing the loan amount.  The loan amount was completely repaid in 2009 and it took around 3 years to return the original policy to the respondent which amounts to deficiency of service.  The forum below rightly observed that there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. 

          In the result, appeal is dismissed and we uphold the order passed by

 

the Forum below.  The order is to comply within 30 days on receipt of the copy of this order. 

          The copy of the order is to be sent to the Forum below along with LCR.            

 

1. RADHA, MEMBER

 

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

 

SANTHAMMA THOMAS, MEMBER

 

 

 

 

nb

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KERALA STATE

 CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHAR LANE, VAZHUTHACADU,

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

 

 

APPEAL NO.74/14

JUDGMENT DTD:25/08/15

 

nb