ALEX J.REBELLO vs L.I.C. of India

THIS appeal by the complainant is directed against the Order dated 25.4.1990 of the District Forum, Bangalore in Complaint No. 11/1989-90 on its file.

ITS arises in this way:- The appellant had taken seven policies from the Respondent No. 1 on his life. He had assigned all his rights under those policies in favour of Respondent No. 2. The complainant was an employee of Respondent No. 2 and he had taken loan from Respondent No. 2 and for that purpose he had assigned all his rights under the said policies in favour of Respondent No. 2 and the same had been endorsed on the said policies. The amount of the premium payable in respect of all those policies was being deducted out of the salary of the appellant. Some of the policies matured and in respect of some, he claimed surrender value. There was delay in settling the claims according to the complainant and so he filed the complaint before the District Forum, claiming interest for the period of delay on the ground that he had to pay heavy interest on the loan taken from Respondent No. 2.

The complaint was resisted by Respondent No. 1 by contending inter alia, that as the complainant has assigned all the policies including all the future benefits thereof absolutely in favour of Respondent No. 2; the complainant has no right to claim monies due under the policies or the interests thereon; that the claim for interest in respect of Policy Nos. 12588703 and 39761236 is barred by time; that there was no delay in making payment in respect of Policy Nos. 39608536, 39743024, 39727048 and 39490443 and that the interest for the period of delay has been paid in respect of Policy No. 39536430.

RESPONDENT No. 2, resisted the complaint by contending inter alia that the complain- ant is not a consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ''Act'') and that it is not liable to-pay any interest either jointly along with LIC of India or severally. On the materials placed before it, the District Forum held that the claim of the complainant is not barred by time; that the complainant is not entitled for interest and dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal by the complainant.

THE following facts are no longer in dispute before us:- That the appellant had taken seven policies from Respondent No. 1 on his life and that he had assigned all those policies absolutely in favour of Respondent No. 2 while taking loan from Second Respondent. Mr. H.L.N. Murthy, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 urged that as the appellant had assigned all his policies in favour of Respondent No. 2 absolutely, he has lost his right to claim anything under the Policies from Respondent No. 1. In support of his said contention, he relied upon the decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 185. As the appellant had assigned absolutely all his policies in favour of Respondent No. 2 and as the assignment had been registered with Respondent No. 1 prior to the date of maturity or prior to the dale of claiming the surrender value in respect of the said policies, the appellant has lost his right to claim interest or anything under the said policies from Respondent No. 1. The said view finds support from the decision in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Gangadhar Vishwanath Ranade, AIR 1990, Supreme Court 185. If that is so, the Order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint against the Respondent No. 1 is proper.

AS regards Respondent No. 2, Mr. Upadhyaya, learned Counsel urged that as Respondent No. 2 was rendering services in respect of these policies free of charge, the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act. According to Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act - a person who hires services for consideration will be a consumer. In this case, we had given time to the complainant to find out whether he has paid anything for the services of the Respondent No. 2 in respect of his policies. The appellant today fairly stated before us that there is nothing to show that he had paid anything for the said services. According to him, the interest the Bank was collecting on the loan must be said to include the charges for services also. We are not impressed by the said contention for the simple reason that he was paying the interest for the loan taken by him and not for the services. If that is so, the appellant will not be a consumer in respect of his claim as against the Respondent No. 2. Hence the dismissal of his complaint as against the Respondent No. 2 is also proper.

IN that view of the matter, we think it is unnecessary to go into the other questions involved in this appeal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. But under the peculiar circumstances, we make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.