6.Ex.B.8 is the accounts statement filed by the respondent/corporation. The sum assured was Rs.25,000/-. Even in the written statement, the defendant admits that he had taken loan. The loan amount is mentioned in Ex.B.8. It was Rs15,710/-. Obviously, it carried interest. That came to Rs.4,086/-. Therefore, while settling the sum assured, reduction of Rs.19,796/- ought to have been made and the defendant was only entitled to be paid only a sum of Rs.5,204/-. But what was actually paid to him was Rs.36,404/-. This erroneous computation was made because the official, who made the computation was under the impression that the policy carried profits. When the policy did not carry any profit and when the defendant had already availed loan of Rs.15,710/-, I fail to understand as to how the defendant could even receive the amount of Rs.36,404/-. The defendant was not an illiterate villager. He was a bank official. He was receiving policy amount, not lottery prize. He knew that he could not have received even a single rupee above Rs.25,000/-, when the policy did not carry any profit clause. When he availed loan, obviously the same ought to have been deducted from the sum assured. Therefore, the Lower Appellate Court correctly analyzed the entire evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the suit has to be decreed against the defendant. I do not find any substantial question of law arising in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ this second appeal and the same stands dismissed. No costs.
