MICRONET TECHNOLOGIES Vs. VAGDEVI GRAPHICS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.