Semantic Analysis by spaCy
Life Insurance Corpn. of India Vs. Gyaneshwar Kumar
Decided On : May-29-1995
Court : Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna
Notice (8): Undefined index: topics [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36]Code Context$shops2 = $shops['topics'];$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corpn. of India Vs. Gyaneshwar Kumar Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the C.P. Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'B.N. Sinha', (int) 1 => 'Nirmala Devi', (int) 2 => 'S.B. Mishra', (int) 3 => 'Archana Kamath' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '83', (int) 2 => '92', (int) 3 => '2', (int) 4 => '1,60,000.00', (int) 5 => '1,86,000.00', (int) 6 => '1150.00', (int) 7 => '1,200.00', (int) 8 => '3.', (int) 9 => '600.00', (int) 10 => '4.', (int) 11 => '1,200/-', (int) 12 => '2,000/-', (int) 13 => '5.', (int) 14 => '75', (int) 15 => '2', (int) 16 => '695', (int) 17 => '6.', (int) 18 => '8.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '12th May, 1993', (int) 1 => '28th September, 1990', (int) 2 => 'nearly five months', (int) 3 => '45 days', (int) 4 => 'these two years', (int) 5 => 'a month', (int) 6 => '1995' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the District Forum', (int) 1 => 'Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 2 => 'Divisional Office', (int) 3 => 'LIC', (int) 4 => 'LIC', (int) 5 => 'LIC', (int) 6 => 'Smt', (int) 7 => 'LIC', (int) 8 => 'Patna Division', (int) 9 => 'District Forum', (int) 10 => 'LIC', (int) 11 => 'LIC', (int) 12 => 'The District Forum', (int) 13 => 'The National Commission', (int) 14 => 'Indian Bank Association', (int) 15 => 'NCDRC', (int) 16 => 'Forums', (int) 17 => 'LIC', (int) 18 => 'Advocate' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Hazaribagh' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the District Forum', (int) 1 => 'the District Forum' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Valuers', (int) 1 => 'Valuers' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '20%', (int) 1 => '12%', (int) 2 => '18%' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'p.a.' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114170', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 218 of 1993 ', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corpn. of India', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corpn. of India Vs. Gyaneshwar Kumar', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(e) -<br/> <br/> Result:<br/> Complaint dismissed.<br/> <br/> Case Referred:<br/> 1995 (1) CPJ 75 (NC), 1994 (2) CTJ 695 (CP) (NCDRC).<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1996 (2) CPJ 166', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1995-05-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Sinha, President:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 12th May, 1993 passed by the District Forum, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 83 of 92 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The facts of the case as put in by the complainant before the District Forum may be briefly noticed. The opposite partyâLife Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, OY-H.S. Patna (hereinafter called LIC) sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,60,000.00 under OY.H Scheme of the LIC to the complainant who is a policy holder of LIC for Rs. 1,86,000.00 and directed him to deposit Rs. 1150.00 and Rs. 50//- as processing fee. The loan was sanctioned by the opposite party-LIC on 28th September, 1990 after nearly five months after the date of the receipt of the application in their office though the loan has to be sanctioned within 45 days from the date of receipt of the application. The opposite party-LIC raised objection to the grant of loan pointing out flimsy technical defect in the sale deed. He in his letter pointed out to the opposite party that the LIC in similar case of Smt. Nirmala Devi had sanctioned loan without any such objection. But the LIC-opposite party did not agree to his proposal and hence there was no alternative for him but to ask for refund of processing fee deposited by him and return of the papers and documents which he had deposited in the office of the opposite party-LIC in connection with that loan. But he was informed by the Manager of the LIC, Patna Division that they are prepared to refund the amount deposited as processing fee after deducting Advocates and Valuers fee. There was no justification for deduction of Valuers fee. The complainant therefore filed case before the District Forum alleging that by mala fide action of LIC he had to undergo mental agony and heavy financial loss as the cost of construction of the building has gone up in these two years, and hence he was entitled to Rs. 75,000.00 as compensation and refund of Rs. 1,200.00 the processing fee deposited by him with 20% interest thereon.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. On being noticed the opposite party appeared and challenged the claim of the complainant alleging inter alia that before sanctioning loans the LIC gets the documents and the papers filed by the applicant examined by an Advocate to ascertain title in every case for which they have to pay the Advocate. The documents and papers of the complainant were examined by Mr. S.B. Mishra, Panel Advocate of LIC for which Rs. 550/- was paid to him and the remaining amount of Rs. 600.00 is lying to the credit of the complaint regarding which intimation was sent to the complainant by letter dated 1.2.92 with which a pre-paid voucher was also sent to the complainant to be returned to the LIC duly discharged by the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The District Forum on the basis of the allegations made by the complainant and the averments made by the opposite party accepted the case of the complainant and directed the opposite party-LIC to pay Rs. 1,200/- to the complainant with 12% interest per annum thereon, from the date of the filing of the case before the District Forum alongwith Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and cost with a direction to pay that amount within a month, failing which the opposite party-LIC has to pay 18% p.a. interest thereon till the date of their payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. At the very out set it may be mentioned that it is not a consumer dispute. The question of pricing does not constitute a consumer dispute. In the instant case also it is a question of pricing of or charging for service in connection with the application for loan by the complainant. Hence no dispute with regard thereto can be raised under the C.P. Act. The National Commission has observed in the case of Indian Bank Association v. Archana Kamath and Others, I (1995) CPJ 75 (NC)=(1994) 2 CTJ 695 (CP) (NCDRC) that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Forums under the Act to adjudicate on question of reasonableness of the consideration or price charged for the services rendered or to be rendered. The LIC has to satisfy itself with regard to the title of the applicants over the land before granting loan for house construction and therefore get the documents and papers examined by an Advocate and hence negligence and deficiency of service cannot be alleged on that ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. For these reasons we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The complaint is dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. There is, however, no order as to cost.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Complaint dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Gyaneshwar Kumar', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1114170' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corpn. of India Vs. Gyaneshwar Kumar Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the C.P. Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'B.N. Sinha', (int) 1 => 'Nirmala Devi', (int) 2 => 'S.B. Mishra', (int) 3 => 'Archana Kamath' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '83', (int) 2 => '92', (int) 3 => '2', (int) 4 => '1,60,000.00', (int) 5 => '1,86,000.00', (int) 6 => '1150.00', (int) 7 => '1,200.00', (int) 8 => '3.', (int) 9 => '600.00', (int) 10 => '4.', (int) 11 => '1,200/-', (int) 12 => '2,000/-', (int) 13 => '5.', (int) 14 => '75', (int) 15 => '2', (int) 16 => '695', (int) 17 => '6.', (int) 18 => '8.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '12th May, 1993', (int) 1 => '28th September, 1990', (int) 2 => 'nearly five months', (int) 3 => '45 days', (int) 4 => 'these two years', (int) 5 => 'a month', (int) 6 => '1995' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the District Forum', (int) 1 => 'Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 2 => 'Divisional Office', (int) 3 => 'LIC', (int) 4 => 'LIC', (int) 5 => 'LIC', (int) 6 => 'Smt', (int) 7 => 'LIC', (int) 8 => 'Patna Division', (int) 9 => 'District Forum', (int) 10 => 'LIC', (int) 11 => 'LIC', (int) 12 => 'The District Forum', (int) 13 => 'The National Commission', (int) 14 => 'Indian Bank Association', (int) 15 => 'NCDRC', (int) 16 => 'Forums', (int) 17 => 'LIC', (int) 18 => 'Advocate' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Hazaribagh' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the District Forum', (int) 1 => 'the District Forum' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Valuers', (int) 1 => 'Valuers' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '20%', (int) 1 => '12%', (int) 2 => '18%' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'p.a.' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114170', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 218 of 1993 ', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corpn. of India', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corpn. of India Vs. Gyaneshwar Kumar', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(e) -<br/> <br/> Result:<br/> Complaint dismissed.<br/> <br/> Case Referred:<br/> 1995 (1) CPJ 75 (NC), 1994 (2) CTJ 695 (CP) (NCDRC).<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1996 (2) CPJ 166', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1995-05-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Sinha, President:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 12th May, 1993 passed by the District Forum, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 83 of 92 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The facts of the case as put in by the complainant before the District Forum may be briefly noticed. The opposite partyâLife Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, OY-H.S. Patna (hereinafter called LIC) sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,60,000.00 under OY.H Scheme of the LIC to the complainant who is a policy holder of LIC for Rs. 1,86,000.00 and directed him to deposit Rs. 1150.00 and Rs. 50//- as processing fee. The loan was sanctioned by the opposite party-LIC on 28th September, 1990 after nearly five months after the date of the receipt of the application in their office though the loan has to be sanctioned within 45 days from the date of receipt of the application. The opposite party-LIC raised objection to the grant of loan pointing out flimsy technical defect in the sale deed. He in his letter pointed out to the opposite party that the LIC in similar case of Smt. Nirmala Devi had sanctioned loan without any such objection. But the LIC-opposite party did not agree to his proposal and hence there was no alternative for him but to ask for refund of processing fee deposited by him and return of the papers and documents which he had deposited in the office of the opposite party-LIC in connection with that loan. But he was informed by the Manager of the LIC, Patna Division that they are prepared to refund the amount deposited as processing fee after deducting Advocates and Valuers fee. There was no justification for deduction of Valuers fee. The complainant therefore filed case before the District Forum alleging that by mala fide action of LIC he had to undergo mental agony and heavy financial loss as the cost of construction of the building has gone up in these two years, and hence he was entitled to Rs. 75,000.00 as compensation and refund of Rs. 1,200.00 the processing fee deposited by him with 20% interest thereon.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. On being noticed the opposite party appeared and challenged the claim of the complainant alleging inter alia that before sanctioning loans the LIC gets the documents and the papers filed by the applicant examined by an Advocate to ascertain title in every case for which they have to pay the Advocate. The documents and papers of the complainant were examined by Mr. S.B. Mishra, Panel Advocate of LIC for which Rs. 550/- was paid to him and the remaining amount of Rs. 600.00 is lying to the credit of the complaint regarding which intimation was sent to the complainant by letter dated 1.2.92 with which a pre-paid voucher was also sent to the complainant to be returned to the LIC duly discharged by the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The District Forum on the basis of the allegations made by the complainant and the averments made by the opposite party accepted the case of the complainant and directed the opposite party-LIC to pay Rs. 1,200/- to the complainant with 12% interest per annum thereon, from the date of the filing of the case before the District Forum alongwith Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and cost with a direction to pay that amount within a month, failing which the opposite party-LIC has to pay 18% p.a. interest thereon till the date of their payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. At the very out set it may be mentioned that it is not a consumer dispute. The question of pricing does not constitute a consumer dispute. In the instant case also it is a question of pricing of or charging for service in connection with the application for loan by the complainant. Hence no dispute with regard thereto can be raised under the C.P. Act. The National Commission has observed in the case of Indian Bank Association v. Archana Kamath and Others, I (1995) CPJ 75 (NC)=(1994) 2 CTJ 695 (CP) (NCDRC) that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Forums under the Act to adjudicate on question of reasonableness of the consideration or price charged for the services rendered or to be rendered. The LIC has to satisfy itself with regard to the title of the applicants over the land before granting loan for house construction and therefore get the documents and papers examined by an Advocate and hence negligence and deficiency of service cannot be alleged on that ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. For these reasons we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The complaint is dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. There is, however, no order as to cost.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Complaint dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Gyaneshwar Kumar', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1114170' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/'include - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 36 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
Warning (2): Invalid argument supplied for foreach() [APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39]Code Context//$shops = $shops['entities'];foreach ($shops2 as $key => $val) {$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/meta.ctp' $dataForView = array( 'title_for_layout' => 'Life Insurance Corpn. of India Vs. Gyaneshwar Kumar Semantic Analysis', 'shops' => array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the C.P. Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'B.N. Sinha', (int) 1 => 'Nirmala Devi', (int) 2 => 'S.B. Mishra', (int) 3 => 'Archana Kamath' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '83', (int) 2 => '92', (int) 3 => '2', (int) 4 => '1,60,000.00', (int) 5 => '1,86,000.00', (int) 6 => '1150.00', (int) 7 => '1,200.00', (int) 8 => '3.', (int) 9 => '600.00', (int) 10 => '4.', (int) 11 => '1,200/-', (int) 12 => '2,000/-', (int) 13 => '5.', (int) 14 => '75', (int) 15 => '2', (int) 16 => '695', (int) 17 => '6.', (int) 18 => '8.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '12th May, 1993', (int) 1 => '28th September, 1990', (int) 2 => 'nearly five months', (int) 3 => '45 days', (int) 4 => 'these two years', (int) 5 => 'a month', (int) 6 => '1995' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the District Forum', (int) 1 => 'Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 2 => 'Divisional Office', (int) 3 => 'LIC', (int) 4 => 'LIC', (int) 5 => 'LIC', (int) 6 => 'Smt', (int) 7 => 'LIC', (int) 8 => 'Patna Division', (int) 9 => 'District Forum', (int) 10 => 'LIC', (int) 11 => 'LIC', (int) 12 => 'The District Forum', (int) 13 => 'The National Commission', (int) 14 => 'Indian Bank Association', (int) 15 => 'NCDRC', (int) 16 => 'Forums', (int) 17 => 'LIC', (int) 18 => 'Advocate' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Hazaribagh' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the District Forum', (int) 1 => 'the District Forum' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Valuers', (int) 1 => 'Valuers' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '20%', (int) 1 => '12%', (int) 2 => '18%' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'p.a.' ) ), 'desc' => array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114170', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 218 of 1993 ', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corpn. of India', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corpn. of India Vs. Gyaneshwar Kumar', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(e) -<br/> <br/> Result:<br/> Complaint dismissed.<br/> <br/> Case Referred:<br/> 1995 (1) CPJ 75 (NC), 1994 (2) CTJ 695 (CP) (NCDRC).<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1996 (2) CPJ 166', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1995-05-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Sinha, President:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 12th May, 1993 passed by the District Forum, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 83 of 92 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The facts of the case as put in by the complainant before the District Forum may be briefly noticed. The opposite partyâLife Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, OY-H.S. Patna (hereinafter called LIC) sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,60,000.00 under OY.H Scheme of the LIC to the complainant who is a policy holder of LIC for Rs. 1,86,000.00 and directed him to deposit Rs. 1150.00 and Rs. 50//- as processing fee. The loan was sanctioned by the opposite party-LIC on 28th September, 1990 after nearly five months after the date of the receipt of the application in their office though the loan has to be sanctioned within 45 days from the date of receipt of the application. The opposite party-LIC raised objection to the grant of loan pointing out flimsy technical defect in the sale deed. He in his letter pointed out to the opposite party that the LIC in similar case of Smt. Nirmala Devi had sanctioned loan without any such objection. But the LIC-opposite party did not agree to his proposal and hence there was no alternative for him but to ask for refund of processing fee deposited by him and return of the papers and documents which he had deposited in the office of the opposite party-LIC in connection with that loan. But he was informed by the Manager of the LIC, Patna Division that they are prepared to refund the amount deposited as processing fee after deducting Advocates and Valuers fee. There was no justification for deduction of Valuers fee. The complainant therefore filed case before the District Forum alleging that by mala fide action of LIC he had to undergo mental agony and heavy financial loss as the cost of construction of the building has gone up in these two years, and hence he was entitled to Rs. 75,000.00 as compensation and refund of Rs. 1,200.00 the processing fee deposited by him with 20% interest thereon.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. On being noticed the opposite party appeared and challenged the claim of the complainant alleging inter alia that before sanctioning loans the LIC gets the documents and the papers filed by the applicant examined by an Advocate to ascertain title in every case for which they have to pay the Advocate. The documents and papers of the complainant were examined by Mr. S.B. Mishra, Panel Advocate of LIC for which Rs. 550/- was paid to him and the remaining amount of Rs. 600.00 is lying to the credit of the complaint regarding which intimation was sent to the complainant by letter dated 1.2.92 with which a pre-paid voucher was also sent to the complainant to be returned to the LIC duly discharged by the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The District Forum on the basis of the allegations made by the complainant and the averments made by the opposite party accepted the case of the complainant and directed the opposite party-LIC to pay Rs. 1,200/- to the complainant with 12% interest per annum thereon, from the date of the filing of the case before the District Forum alongwith Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and cost with a direction to pay that amount within a month, failing which the opposite party-LIC has to pay 18% p.a. interest thereon till the date of their payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. At the very out set it may be mentioned that it is not a consumer dispute. The question of pricing does not constitute a consumer dispute. In the instant case also it is a question of pricing of or charging for service in connection with the application for loan by the complainant. Hence no dispute with regard thereto can be raised under the C.P. Act. The National Commission has observed in the case of Indian Bank Association v. Archana Kamath and Others, I (1995) CPJ 75 (NC)=(1994) 2 CTJ 695 (CP) (NCDRC) that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Forums under the Act to adjudicate on question of reasonableness of the consideration or price charged for the services rendered or to be rendered. The LIC has to satisfy itself with regard to the title of the applicants over the land before granting loan for house construction and therefore get the documents and papers examined by an Advocate and hence negligence and deficiency of service cannot be alleged on that ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. For these reasons we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The complaint is dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. There is, however, no order as to cost.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Complaint dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Gyaneshwar Kumar', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ), 'args' => array( (int) 0 => '1114170' ) ) $title_for_layout = 'Life Insurance Corpn. of India Vs. Gyaneshwar Kumar Semantic Analysis' $shops = array( 'LAW' => array( (int) 0 => 'the C.P. Act' ), 'PERSON' => array( (int) 0 => 'B.N. Sinha', (int) 1 => 'Nirmala Devi', (int) 2 => 'S.B. Mishra', (int) 3 => 'Archana Kamath' ), 'CARDINAL' => array( (int) 0 => '1', (int) 1 => '83', (int) 2 => '92', (int) 3 => '2', (int) 4 => '1,60,000.00', (int) 5 => '1,86,000.00', (int) 6 => '1150.00', (int) 7 => '1,200.00', (int) 8 => '3.', (int) 9 => '600.00', (int) 10 => '4.', (int) 11 => '1,200/-', (int) 12 => '2,000/-', (int) 13 => '5.', (int) 14 => '75', (int) 15 => '2', (int) 16 => '695', (int) 17 => '6.', (int) 18 => '8.' ), 'DATE' => array( (int) 0 => '12th May, 1993', (int) 1 => '28th September, 1990', (int) 2 => 'nearly five months', (int) 3 => '45 days', (int) 4 => 'these two years', (int) 5 => 'a month', (int) 6 => '1995' ), 'ORG' => array( (int) 0 => 'the District Forum', (int) 1 => 'Insurance Corporation of India', (int) 2 => 'Divisional Office', (int) 3 => 'LIC', (int) 4 => 'LIC', (int) 5 => 'LIC', (int) 6 => 'Smt', (int) 7 => 'LIC', (int) 8 => 'Patna Division', (int) 9 => 'District Forum', (int) 10 => 'LIC', (int) 11 => 'LIC', (int) 12 => 'The District Forum', (int) 13 => 'The National Commission', (int) 14 => 'Indian Bank Association', (int) 15 => 'NCDRC', (int) 16 => 'Forums', (int) 17 => 'LIC', (int) 18 => 'Advocate' ), 'NORP' => array( (int) 0 => 'Hazaribagh' ), 'FAC' => array( (int) 0 => 'the District Forum', (int) 1 => 'the District Forum' ), 'PRODUCT' => array( (int) 0 => 'Valuers', (int) 1 => 'Valuers' ), 'PERCENT' => array( (int) 0 => '20%', (int) 1 => '12%', (int) 2 => '18%' ), 'GPE' => array( (int) 0 => 'p.a.' ) ) $desc = array( 'Judgement' => array( 'id' => '1114170', 'acts' => null, 'appealno' => 'Appeal No. 218 of 1993 ', 'appellant' => 'Life Insurance Corpn. of India', 'authreffered' => null, 'casename' => 'Life Insurance Corpn. of India Vs. Gyaneshwar Kumar', 'casenote' => 'Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(e) -<br/> <br/> Result:<br/> Complaint dismissed.<br/> <br/> Case Referred:<br/> 1995 (1) CPJ 75 (NC), 1994 (2) CTJ 695 (CP) (NCDRC).<br/> <br/> Comparative Citation:<br/> 1996 (2) CPJ 166', 'caseanalysis' => null, 'casesref' => null, 'citingcases' => null, 'counselplain' => null, 'counseldef' => null, 'court' => 'Bihar State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC Patna', 'court_type' => 'TRI', 'decidedon' => '1995-05-29', 'deposition' => null, 'favorof' => null, 'findings' => null, 'judge' => 'B.N. SINHA, PRESIDENT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. KALPANA ASHOK, MEMBER', 'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">B.N. Sinha, President:<p style="text-align: justify;"> 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 12th May, 1993 passed by the District Forum, Hazaribagh in Complaint Case No. 83 of 92 in which the appellant here was the opposite party and the respondent here was the complainant before the District Forum.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 2. The facts of the case as put in by the complainant before the District Forum may be briefly noticed. The opposite partyâLife Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, OY-H.S. Patna (hereinafter called LIC) sanctioned a loan of Rs. 1,60,000.00 under OY.H Scheme of the LIC to the complainant who is a policy holder of LIC for Rs. 1,86,000.00 and directed him to deposit Rs. 1150.00 and Rs. 50//- as processing fee. The loan was sanctioned by the opposite party-LIC on 28th September, 1990 after nearly five months after the date of the receipt of the application in their office though the loan has to be sanctioned within 45 days from the date of receipt of the application. The opposite party-LIC raised objection to the grant of loan pointing out flimsy technical defect in the sale deed. He in his letter pointed out to the opposite party that the LIC in similar case of Smt. Nirmala Devi had sanctioned loan without any such objection. But the LIC-opposite party did not agree to his proposal and hence there was no alternative for him but to ask for refund of processing fee deposited by him and return of the papers and documents which he had deposited in the office of the opposite party-LIC in connection with that loan. But he was informed by the Manager of the LIC, Patna Division that they are prepared to refund the amount deposited as processing fee after deducting Advocates and Valuers fee. There was no justification for deduction of Valuers fee. The complainant therefore filed case before the District Forum alleging that by mala fide action of LIC he had to undergo mental agony and heavy financial loss as the cost of construction of the building has gone up in these two years, and hence he was entitled to Rs. 75,000.00 as compensation and refund of Rs. 1,200.00 the processing fee deposited by him with 20% interest thereon.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 3. On being noticed the opposite party appeared and challenged the claim of the complainant alleging inter alia that before sanctioning loans the LIC gets the documents and the papers filed by the applicant examined by an Advocate to ascertain title in every case for which they have to pay the Advocate. The documents and papers of the complainant were examined by Mr. S.B. Mishra, Panel Advocate of LIC for which Rs. 550/- was paid to him and the remaining amount of Rs. 600.00 is lying to the credit of the complaint regarding which intimation was sent to the complainant by letter dated 1.2.92 with which a pre-paid voucher was also sent to the complainant to be returned to the LIC duly discharged by the complainant.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 4. The District Forum on the basis of the allegations made by the complainant and the averments made by the opposite party accepted the case of the complainant and directed the opposite party-LIC to pay Rs. 1,200/- to the complainant with 12% interest per annum thereon, from the date of the filing of the case before the District Forum alongwith Rs. 2,000/- as compensation and cost with a direction to pay that amount within a month, failing which the opposite party-LIC has to pay 18% p.a. interest thereon till the date of their payment.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 5. At the very out set it may be mentioned that it is not a consumer dispute. The question of pricing does not constitute a consumer dispute. In the instant case also it is a question of pricing of or charging for service in connection with the application for loan by the complainant. Hence no dispute with regard thereto can be raised under the C.P. Act. The National Commission has observed in the case of Indian Bank Association v. Archana Kamath and Others, I (1995) CPJ 75 (NC)=(1994) 2 CTJ 695 (CP) (NCDRC) that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the Forums under the Act to adjudicate on question of reasonableness of the consideration or price charged for the services rendered or to be rendered. The LIC has to satisfy itself with regard to the title of the applicants over the land before granting loan for house construction and therefore get the documents and papers examined by an Advocate and hence negligence and deficiency of service cannot be alleged on that ground.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 6. For these reasons we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 7. In the result the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. The complaint is dismissed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> 8. There is, however, no order as to cost.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> Complaint dismissed.</p>', 'observations' => null, 'overruledby' => null, 'prhistory' => null, 'pubs' => null, 'ratiodecidendi' => null, 'respondent' => 'Gyaneshwar Kumar', 'sub' => null, 'link' => null, 'circuit' => null ) ) $args = array( (int) 0 => '1114170' ) $pattern = '/\(((0[1-9]|[12][0-9]|3[01])[.](0[1-9]|1[012])[.](17|18|19|20)[0-9]{2}).*\)/' $shops2 = nullinclude - APP/View/Case/meta.ctp, line 39 View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971 View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933 View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473 Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963 Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200 Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167 [main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109
LAW: the C.P. Act
PERSON: B.N. Sinha, Nirmala Devi, S.B. Mishra, Archana Kamath
CARDINAL: 1, 83, 92, 2, 1,60,000.00, 1,86,000.00, 1150.00, 1,200.00, 3., 600.00, 4., 1,200/-, 2,000/-, 5., 75, 2, 695, 6., 8.
DATE: 12th May, 1993, 28th September, 1990, nearly five months, 45 days, these two years, a month, 1995
ORG: the District Forum, Insurance Corporation of India, Divisional Office, LIC, LIC, LIC, Smt, LIC, Patna Division, District Forum, LIC, LIC, The District Forum, The National Commission, Indian Bank Association, NCDRC, Forums, LIC, Advocate
NORP: Hazaribagh
FAC: the District Forum, the District Forum
PRODUCT: Valuers, Valuers
PERCENT: 20%, 12%, 18%
GPE: p.a.