SUNDER SINGH Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION HOUSING FINANCE LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of two appeals No.112 of 1996 filed by Sunder Singh Shilwant and No.126 of 1996 filed by the Life Insurance Corporation (Housing Finance, Ltd.), Karnal, as both these appeals are against one and the same order dated 19.1.1996 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Karnal, whereby the complaint of Sunder Singh Shilwant alleging deficiency in service against the Life Insurance Corporation in the matter of advancing loan for the purpose of construction of a house has been partly allowed.

(2.) The complainant, who is a Lecturer in the Faculty of Laws, M. D. University, Rohtak, approached the District Consumer Forum, Karnal with the grievance that as he had obtained an insurance policy of rupees one lac in February, 1992, he applied on 27.1.1993 to the opposite party for grant of loan amounting to Rs.90,000/-. Though a sum of Rs.40,000/- had been disbursed to him on 10.6.1993 the balance amount was not released. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the LIC the complainant claimed compensation of Rs.2 lacs alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p. a. against the opposite party. In their reply, the LIC pleaded that simply because the complainant had taken out a LIC policy, it did not confer upon him an automatic right to obtain the house building loan. Since there were a number of other formalities and requirement to be completed by the complainant, second instalment was not released due to the non-co- operation of the complainant himself. The District Consumer Forum, after going through the detailed documentary evidence came to the conclusion that though there was no cogent evidence in support of the allegations levelled by the complainant, yet he was not treated with proper respect and dignity with which a person should have been treated by the LIC. Thus, the complaint was partly allowed by passing the following directions: "the complainant has led no direct evidence on the quantum of compensation. It has only been argued that the complainant is an educated person and he had to get a loan at a higher rate from other sources. Adequate compensation has been claimed but the definite proof for definite amount is missing so that we would make a guess to award a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on account of deficiency in service by opp. party. We also direct opp. party to pay a sum of Rs.500/- as cost of litigation to the complainant".

(3.) In Appeal No.112 of 1996, the learned Counsel for the appellant has reiterated the submissions as were raised before the learned District Forum to contend, that the second and third instalments of the loan had not been released by the LIC. In reply thereto, the learned Counsel for the LIC advancing the arguments in support of the cross appeal No.126 of 1996 pleaded that the second and third instalments were not released because the complainant had failed to produce the valuation report regarding the construction of the house.