M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The opposite party is the appellant.
(2.) The case of the complainant: The complainant?s husband Srinivasan, being the member of the opposite party society, obtained a loan of Rs.4 lakhs, for the construction ofa house, which was disbursed on various dates. The amount including interest viz. Rs.6211.66/- per month, should be paid in 120 months. From the loan amount, insurance amount of Rs.28000/- was deducted, and policy was given in the name of Srinivasan. Srinivasan died on 24.3.2005, and till his death, he paid a sum of Rs.72000/-. Immediately, after his death, furnishing necessary documents, the complainant requested the opposite party, to adjust the insurance amount, which was delayed, resulting a further payment of Rs.8319/- on 17.6.2005. On 19.7.2007, the insurance company sent the amount to the opposite party, which was informed to the complainant on 27.7.2007, but unfortunately, the opposite party sent a notice, demanding a sum of Rs.91,575/-, from July 2007, which is unfair, should be construed as deficiency in service, since the opposite party is bound to adjust the insurance amount to the loan. By demanding interest, they have not only caused mental agony, but also failed to return the documents, thereby causing further hardship and mental agony, for which the complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.1lakh, in addition to a direction for the return of the document.
(3.) The opposite party admitting the loan borrowed by the husband of the complainant, as well admitting the payment of a sum of Rs.72,511/-, till his death viz. 24.3.2005, resisted the case, interalia contending, that on the basis of the group insurance scheme, at the request of the complainant, claim was sent to the head office on 8.7.2005, and the head office informed about the receipt of Rs.4 lakhs, further informing that the opposite party should collect the interest from 24.3.2005 to July 2007, which was demanded legally, cannot be termed as negligent act, or deficiency in service, and for the non-payment of the said amount alone, document was not given, which cannot be termed as deficiency or negligent act, praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;