Date of filing: 20.07.2021

                                                            Date of Disposal: 05.06.2023

 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,      BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 05^th DAY OF JUNE, 2023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.325/2021

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Ms. Neetha B.S,

Aged About 37 years,

D/o. Subbaiah B.P,

Flat No.A-408, Fourth Floor,

Prabhavathi Bliss, Begur Village,

Begur Hobli, Bangalore.……COMPLAINANT

(Rep. by Sri. Iggu Chittiappa, Advocate)

- V/s -

1) ANDHRA BANK,

(Through its bank Manager)

East, Pattabhiram Nagar,

Jayanagar, Bangalore,

(Rep. by Sri. Divya Purandar, Advocate)

2) INDIA FIRST LIFE INSURANCE

CORPORATION LIMITED,

301, B Wing, The Qube,

Infinity Park, Dindoshi-Filim City Road,

Malad (East), Mumbai.

(Rep. by Sri. Kusuma M, Advocate)

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI. RAJU. K.S, MEMBER

01.    The complainant has filed this complaint under Section-34 & 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking for a direction to opposite party No.2 to approve the claims raised by the complainant in terms of the insurance policy by holding the opposite party No.1 liable to deficiency of service and compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- from the opposite party No.1 for mental agony and harassment caused.

02.    The case of the complainant is that, the complainant along with her deceased husband Late Mr. Bopanna A.C had approached the opposite party No.1 for availing housing loan for their house flat No.A-408, 4^th Floor, Prabhavathi Bliss, Begur Village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore.  On 14.03.2014 the complainant No.1, after scrutinizing the documents sanctioned loan amount Rs.27,35,000/-, and it was disbursed to complainant and to her deceased husband as co-obligant.  On 13.03.2014 a sale deed was executed by the Prabhavathi Builders in favour of complainant and her deceased husband and possession also delivered to the complainant on the same day.  The complainant availed the said loan by depositing title deeds to opposite party No.1-Bank.

03.    As per the instructions of opposite party No.1 complainant and her deceased husband availed a group credit life plan (insurance policy).  The said life insurance policy is a joint venture between Bank of Baroda, Andhra Bank and legal and general UK.  Further by the said insurance policy the complainant and the co-obligant her husband Mr. Bopanna A.C. are indemnified in case of any untoward incident.  For that, the opposite party No.1 has deducted total Rs.1,08,831.25 from the account of complainant and paid to opposite party No.2 – Insurance Company.  In-spite of payment received by the opposite party No.2 – Company has failed to dispatch the policy certificate to the complainant.

04.     On 14.11.2019 the co-obligant Mr. Bopanna was died due to cardiac arrest.  On 06.12.2019 the complainant approached the opposite party No.1-Bank for availing necessary assistance in order to get the legal claim.  Further, on 06.12.2019 the complainant filed claim petition before the opposite party No.2 along with necessary document and death certificate of her deceased husband.  In-spite of repeated request of the complainant on 06.12.2019 and 13.02.2020, the opposite party No.2 did not settle the claim of the complainant.  Finally, on 17.02.2020 the complainant received an E-mail from opposite party No.2 by stating that, “in view of non-payment of insurance premium, the policy has lapsed” and repudiated the claim of the complainant.  Thereby the opposite party No.2 has deliberately and intentionally repudiated the claim of the complainant even they have received the insurance premium.  The opposite party No.1 has contractually obligated to pay the entire premium as per their manifest and the opposite party No.2 has legal obligations to honour the claim of the complainant.  By denying the claim of the complainant both opposite party No. 1 & 2 are liable to the complainant under the deficiency of service.  Hence this complaint filed.

05.    The opposite party No.1 has filed their version by resisting the claim of the complainant and denied the complaint averments.  The opposite party No.1-Bank specifically stated that, they have sanctioned housing loan of Rs.27,35,000/- on 13.03.2014 which accompanied condition to repay the loan 180 EMIs with floating interest at 10.25%.  Further the complainant and her deceased husband has availed the insurance policy from opposite party No.2, for that, Rs.16,179/- was debited on 28.03.2014 from the complainant’s account towards property insurance.  Thereafter on 04.06.2014 a sum of Rs.68,006.55 and a sum of Rs.24,645/- was debited from the complainant’s account towards liability insurance and same was credited to opposite party No.2 account.  Further the opposite party No.1 stated that, there is no lapse on the part of the opposite party No.1, they have promptly paid insurance premium amount to the opposite party No.2 account, and opposite party No.1 is only an intermediary between complainant and opposite party No.2.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 and pray for dismissal of the complaint against opposite party No.1.

06.    The opposite party No.2 has filed their version by denying the claim of the complainant and specifically stated that, they have received the partial premium amount of Rs.92,652/- from the complainant.  Since the complainant has not paid the due premium amount of Rs.50,698/- to cover PLA’s from Andhra Bank who is master policy holder, the entire premium amount of Rs.92,652/- was refunded to the complainant’s account on 13.08.2015.  There is no legal obligation to comply the demand of the complainant since there is no insurance premium has been paid to the opposite party No.2.  Hence question of paying the insurance amount does not arises.  Further there is no deficiency of service since there is no privity of contract due to non-receiving of the insurance premium from the complainant.  Hence pray for dismissal of the complaint.

07.    The complainant has filed affidavit in the form of her evidence in chief and got marked EX.P.1 to P.8 documents.  The representative of opposite party No.1 (RW1) has filed his affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.R.1 to R.3 documents.  The representative of opposite party No.2 (RW2) has filed his affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX. R.4 document.

08.    The complainant and opposite part No.1 & 2 have filed their respective written arguments.   

09.    The points that would arise for consideration are as under:

  (1) Whether the complainant proves that, the opposite parties are liable to the complainant in deficiency of service?

  (2) Whether the complainant is entitle for the 

    relief as sought in the complaint ?

       (3) What order ?

10.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :  In negative

Point No.2 :    In negative

Point No.3 :    As per the final order

for the following:

REASONS

11.    POINT NO.1:- Since the point No.1 & 2 are interlinked to each other and to avoid repetition of facts both points are discussed at once.

12.    In this complaint there is no dispute with regard to the complainant and her deceased husband Bopanna A.C has availed loan amount of Rs.27,35,000/- from the opposite party No.1 on 13.03.2014.  Further there is no dispute with regard to the payment made to opposite party No.2 a sum of Rs.16,179/- towards property insurance and a sum of Rs.68,006.55 and Rs.24,645/- towards liability insurance on 04.06.2014.  The opposite party No.1 being the master policy holder debited the above said insurance premium amount from the complainant’s account and same was credited to the opposite party No.2 account.  Further it is also not in dispute that, the opposite party No.2 has refunded the above said sum of Rs.92,652/- on 13.08.2015 to the complainant’s account due to short-fall of the premium of Rs.50,698/-. 

13.    The complainant alleged that, being the master policy holder the opposite party No.1 has to pay entire premium amount to the opposite party No.2.  It is the legal obligation with the opposite party No.1 to pay the entire premium amount including if any short-fall. 

14.    The opposite party No.2 has contended that, due to partial payment of insurance premium amount of Rs.92,652/- has been made by the complainant and there was short-fall of Rs.50,698/- to indemnify entire claim.  In this complaint there is no privity of contract and no legal obligation with the opposite party No.2 due to non-receiving of the entire premium to hold the indemnification, thereby there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party No.2. 

15.    The opposite party No.1 has contended that, they have paid a sum of Rs.16,179/- towards property insurance and Rs.68,006.55 and Rs.24,645/- towards liability insurance to the opposite party No.2 by debiting the amount from the complainant’s account.  The opposite party No.1 vehemently argued that, if any short-fall in the premium amount same is to be intimated to the opposite party No.1 or to the complainant.  In this complaint the opposite party No.2 neither intimated to the complainant nor to the opposite party No.1 toward short-fall of the insurance premium amount.  They simply kept the insurance premium more than one year and refunded on 13.08.2015 to the complainant’s account.  This fact not intimated either by the opposite party No.2 or by the complainant. 

16.    It is pertinent to note that, the opposite party No.2 has received a sum of Rs.16,179/- towards property insurance on 28.03.2014 and received a sum of Rs.68,006.55 and Rs.24,645/- on 04.06.2014 towards liability insurance.  Total a sum of Rs.92,652/- received towards liability insurance has refunded on 30.08.2015 almost after lapse of 01 year 02 months.  During that period neither the opposite party No.1 nor the complainant has demanded for the policy copy.  Even the complainant or her deceased husband did not make any effort to secure the policy copy for which they had paid premium amount through opposite party No.1.  The complainant has noticed this fact only after death of her husband on 14.11.2019. 

17.    It is apparent that, there is no privity of contract existed between the complainant and opposite party No.2.  Since there is no premium has been paid to the opposite party No.2 and no liability existed as on date of death of the complainant’s husband.  Hence there is no deficiency of service by the opposite party No.2.  Since the opposite party No.1 is only intermediary between complainant and opposite party No.2, there was no role to play in payment of insurance premium.  The opposite party No.1 has legal obligation only in the circumstances instruction of the complainant towards payment of insurance premium.  In this complaint the complainant has not instructed to pay the entire premium amount.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1 & 2.  The citation filed by the complainant’s advocate is not helpful to complainant’s case. In view of the discussion made above, we answered point No.1 & 2 are in negative.

18.    POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed.  No order as to costs. 

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 05^th day of JUNE, 2023)                                            

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainant side:

Smt. Neetha B.S, the complainant (PW.1) has filed affidavit in the form of her evidence in chief.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Xerox copy of the loan sanction letter dt: 13.03.2014 – EX.P.1.

2. Xerox copy of the sale deed dt. 13.03.2014 – EX.P.2.

3. Certified copy of Memorandum of deposit of title deeds dt.13.03.2014 – EX.P.3.

4. Xerox copy of the loan account statement – EX.P.4.

5. Xerox copy of the death certificate – EX.P.5.

6. Certificate us 65(B) of Indian Evidence Act – EX.P.6.

7. Computer downloaded email correspondence – Ex.P.7

8. Office copy of legal notice dt: 17.12.2020 with postal track consignment – Ex.P.8.

Witness examined for the opposite party No.1 side: 

Smt. Rosana Beegum, Branch Manager in opposite party No.1 (RW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of her evidence in chief.

Documents marked for the Opposite Party No.1 side:

1. Letter of authorization – EX.R.1.

2. Xerox copy of the six account ledger entry – EX.R.2.

3. Certified copy of the statement of account – EX.R.3.

Witness examined for the opposite party No.2 side: 

Sri. Hari Babu, Service Manager at opposite party No.2 (RW-2) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

Documents marked for the Opposite Party No.2 side:

1. Computer downloaded copy of the letter of authorization – EX.R.4.

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•