RAMRAJ SINGH vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

COMPLAINANT is aggrieved by the order of the State Commission dismissing his complaint by order dated 24.12.2002.

COMPLAINANT had approached the respondent Life Insurance Corporation for a loan of Rs. 5 lakhs in the year 1990 and in November, 1990 he was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 4 lakhs. The loan amount was to be returned with interest as agreed to. Out of the sanctioned amount of loan of Rs. 4 lakhs, Insurance Corporation disbursed a sum of Rs. 2.14 lakhs until 25.1.1992. The request of the complainant for the balance of Rs.1,10,000/- was not acceded to by letter dated 5.2.1992. It was on account of the fact that Insurance Corporation found that the complainant had defaulted in payment of the instalments to return the loan. A dispute was raised by the complainant that the rate of interest was calculated at 17.5% whereas the same should have been 16% per annum. Insurance Corporation by its letter dated 16.3.1992 informed the complainant that the rate of interest was 17.5%. By letter dated 26.8.1992, Insurance Corporation required the complainant to deposit Rs. 95,851/- by 30.9.1992 which he did not do so. By letter dated 22.9.1992, Insurance Corporation informed the complainant that it was not possible to release further instalments in his favour and further if the petitioner clears all the dues, Insurance Corporation may consider to release further instalment. Nothing happened thereafter. In November, 1992, complainant approached the State Commission. COMPLAINANT had desired the loan for building his cinema and we are told that complainant had spent about Rs. 70 lakhs for construction of the cinema building and it is running. State Commission did not find any deficiency in service for breach of agreement on the part of the Insurance Corporation and dismissed the complaint. Nothing has been shown to us that how it will be said that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Corporation. The fact also remains that complainant had till date has not refunded any amount of the loan of Rs. 2.90 lakhs taken by him. We do not find any merit on the appeal. Appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.