Date of Filing:04/02/2021 Date of Order:26/08/2022 BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27. Dated:26th DAY OF AUGUST 2022 PRESENT SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT SRI. Y.S. THAMMANNA, B.Sc, LL.B., MEMBER SMT.SHARAVATHI S.M, B.A, LL.B., MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.169/2021 COMPLAINANT : | | Sri M. BHADRAIAH NANJUNDAPPA S/o Nanjundappa Aged about 60 years Residing at No.47/48 11th Main Road, 9th Block Vinayaka Layout 2nd Stage, Nagarabhavi Bangalore 560 072. Mob:9844067808 (Sri N.R. Naik Adv. Complainant) | |
Vs OPPOSITE PARTIES: | 1 | SRI DURGA MANSION Represented by its Branch Manager No.144, 2nd Floor Opp. Vittal Dresses D.V.G Road, Above Peter England Showroom Basavanagudi, Bangalore 560 004. | | | 2 | RELIANCE HOME FINANCE LTD., Represented byits Manager No.39, FFK Tower 30th Cross, Tilaknagar main Road Bangalore 560 029. | | 3 | SBFC (SMALL BUSINESS FIN CREDIT INDIA PVT. LTD.,) Represented by its Managing Director Unit No.103, 1st Floor C&B Square Sangham Complex CIS No.GGA-127, Andheri Kurve Road Village Chakale Andheri East, Mumbai 400 059. (Sri VC Avinash Adv for OPs) |
|
ORDER
SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS. PRESIDENT
1. This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties (herein referred to as OPs) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for negligence in service in not paying the hospital expenses of Rs.50,00,000/- and compensation for calling recordings in respect of the loan obtained by him from OP along with interest at 24% on the compensation till payment of the entire amount and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that; complainant borrowed a sum of Rs.1 Crore from OP-1 which was later transferred to OP-3 towards the housing loan to be paid in 144 Emi’s at Rs.1,37,750/- per month with interst at 12% per annum. His wife Lakshmi Badraiah and son Shashikumar are the sureties, for whom insurance have been issued by the OPs. Whereas general insurance ought have been issued in the name of original borrower. Complainant fell ill and got admitted to BGS hospital with the weakness and old age ailments. He was admitted on 28.01.2018 and discharged with a prescription to take tablets. Due to the negligence of OP-1 in not issuing the insurance policy in his name, he was made to suffer mentally. It is common that the original borrower should be given the general insurance but OP has issued the insurance to the sureties and for the deficiency of OPs, they have to be held responsible for future ailments. Now OP-3 is collecting the EMI’s. There is deficiency in service rendered towards the complainant. Legal notice is also issued and the same has been received by OP.2 which has not been replied. He has made Rs.25,00.000/- as payments to BGS Hospital authorities. Hence prayed the commission to allow the complaint.
3. Upon issuance of notice, OPs appeared before this commission and filed its version.
4. In the version filed by OP-1 and 3, it is contended that there is no deficiency in service by them and the complainant is not a consumer under the Act and the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act. OP is engaged in non-banking activities and providing lending credit facilities to the customers. The complainant along with other two co-borrowers i.e. Lakhsmi Bhadraiah and Shashikumar have affixed their signatures to the loan documents and obtained the loan. The loan is under LAP residential BT purpose from OP-1. The certificate of insurance is also provided in the name of Lakhsmi Bhadraiah who has affixed her signature. The complainant is an opportunist and got the insurance in their name and got the loan sanctioned in his name. Further complainant got admitted to BGS Global hospital on 21.08.2020 and got discharged on 27.08.2020. It was informed to him at time of obtaining the loan and insurance that he has to pay more premium in case he gets the insurance in his name as the premium increases with the age and hence the insurance was obtained in the name of his wife and son. Now he is making a false claim. The insurance given is for accidental death, permanent total disability, critical ill ness loss of employment/childcare. The BGS hospital has issued discharge summary which states the treatment, the complainant has undergone and there is no deficiency in service on their part and not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and hence prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint.
5. OP-2 in the version contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is also untenable, unjustified and uncalled for as OP 2 always cooperated with the complainant. They have acted in accordance with the law and terms and conditions. This complaint is filed to pressurize the OP to fulfill the mala-fide intention of the complainant and getting himself enriched. It has denied all the allegations made in each and every para of the complaint. It is stated in the version that the complainant along with his son Shashikumar and wife Lakhsmi Bhadraiah as co-applicant borrowed one crore rupees by executing agreement signed by the said persons and later the said loan was transferred to OP-3 and the same was informed to the complainant. The act of OP-2 is only limited to the sanctioning and disbursement of the loan to the borrower. Why the proper insurance was not issued to his is to be answered by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. On the basis of the application form filled and signed by the complainant, and the co-borrowers, and on providing the requisite documents, credit facility/loan was given to the complainant. This OP is no way concern or related with a type of insurance the complainant has taken. OP-2 is not the authority to answer regarding the issue of insurance policy. The policy was issued in the name of Co-borrower Lakhsmi Bhadraiah and Shashikumar and the said issue has been raised after the lapse of more than two years. Complainant has not produced any documents to show that he has incurred Rs.25 lakhs towards the hospital charges. Complainant and co-borrowers have defaulted in repaying the EMIs and now has filed this complaint, whereas OPs are acting in accordance with guidelines issued by RBI . This complaint is filed after two years the date of disbursal of the loan and issuance of the insurance policy. Hence the complaint is time barred and complaint is not entitle for any of the amount as claimed in the complaint and prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint.
6. In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-
1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?
7. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT NO.1 & 2 : IN THE NEGATIVE.
For the following.
REASONS
POINT No.1 & 2:-
8. On perusing the complaint, version, documents, evidence filed by the both the parties, it becomes clear that, that the complainant borrowed the loan of Rs. One crore and executed the documents and agreement. His wife Lakhsmi Bhadraiah and Shashikumar are the co-borrowers and it is also not in dispute that the accidental insurance, critical health insurance has been issued in the name of Shashikumar his son and not in the name of the complainant, though the premium has been paid from the account of the complainant. It is for the complainant to look after as to whether insurance issued given is proper or not and in case he is not happy and satisfied with the insurance certificate issued by the OPs, he is at liberty to cancel the said insurance and obtain the insurance to his satisfaction. Now when the insurance is issued in 2018, now he is questioning the same it is barred by time. Further no document has been produced by the complainant to show that he has spent Rs.25,00,000/- to the BGS hospital for his treatment. Absolutely we have to say that no case has been made out in the complaint regarding deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. The averment of the complainant do not make clear as to for what purpose this complaint is filed and what is the real deficiency the OPs have rendered to the complainant. The complaint is very very bald to bring forth exactly as to what for the complainant is suffering and what is the relief he wants at the hands of this Commission. Hence we answer POINT NO.1 AND 2 IN THE NEGATIVE and pass the following:
ORDER
- The complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 26th day of AUGUST 2022)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
ANNEXURES
- Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:
CW-1 | Sri M. Bhadraiah Nanjundappa- Complainant |
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:
Ex P1: Copy of the Application form
Ex P2: Copy of the Welcome letter
Ex. P3: Copy of the Sanction letter
Ex P4: Copy of the application form.
Ex P5: Copy of the Sanction letter
Ex P6: Copy of the certificate of insurance
Ex P7: Copy of the Legal notice.
Ex P8: Copy of reply
Ex P9: Copy of Discharge summary
Ex P10: Copy of the receipt.
2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:
RW-1: Mr. Joyal Nadar N, Legal head/Authorized representative of OPs.
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s
Ex R1: Copy of the Authorization letter.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
RAK*
