BRANCH MANAGER, L.I.C. OF INDIA vs M. Chandrasekaran

WHEN the matter was called there was no representation for the respondent. of the four opposite parties the 3rd opposite party Branch Manager, LIC of India, Srivilliputhur, against whom alongwith the 4th opposite party an award has been passed by the District Forum, is the appellant. The complainant had taken a life insurance policy for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in July, 1972. According to him, he wanted a housing loan from the LIC. He was informed that for that he must take a further policy for another sum of Rs. 50,000/-. He took one policy for Rs. 25,000/- in his name and another policy for Rs. 25,000/- in the name of his wife. Thereafter he applied for the loan amount. But in spite of several reminders, lastly he was informed that he could not be given the loan because the property where he wanted to construct the house was situated 5 kms. away from the town centre of Srivilliputhur. On account of this conduct of the opposite party the complainant suffered both physically and mentally. On these grounds the complaint has been filed for compensation.

THE opposite parties contended that there was no promise made or undertaking given to the complainant to give loan on any insurance policy. It is true that he had applied for a housing loan. But since it was found that the property was situated about 5 kms. away from the town area, as per the rules the loan could not be given. Hence the application of the complainant had to be rejected. THErefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The District Forum held that so far as the 1st and 2nd opposite parties were concerned there was no deficiency in service on their part because according to the complainant they told the complainant that if he took a further policy the loan could be given, but they had denied that and there was no evidence to show that the complainant''s case was true. As far as the 3rd and 4th opposite parties, the District Forum held that there was deficiency in service on their part in that they had taken considerable time in rejecting the loan application. Even the District Forum did not say that the refusal to pay the loan by the 3rd and 4th opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service.

It is not in dispute that the property is about 5 kms. away from the town area. The opposite parties had to investigate the matter and ascertain the truth and then they had to come to a conclusion whether the complainant would be entitled for the loan. When first of all the complainant who must be eligible to get the loan is not eligible to get the loan, he cannot complain of any delay on the part of the opposite parties in informing that he was not eligible. Then, the complainant has not paid any consideration for the loan. He has paid only the premium for the insurance policy. As such there is no question of the complainant hiring or availing of any services of the 3rd and 4th opposite parties on payment of any consideration apart from the insurance policy. In these circumstances, we are clearly of the view that the District Forum was wrong in passing an award against the 3rd and 4th opposite parties.

IN this view of the matter, we allow the appeal, set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.