By: Sri. Mohandasan K., President

            Complaint in short is as follows: -

1.         The deceased husband of complainant, namely Vijayan C., S/o Thevutty, Cholayil House, Kalamburam, Ekkaparambu, Kuzhimanna Post, Malappuram Dist, who was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board, had applied for a housing loan from the State Bank of India as LOS application ID- 19227796. Thereafter the deceased Vijayan and the first opposite party executed an agreement for the same on 06/03/2020. The mandatory condition mentioned in the agreement clause (I) in page No.3 was that “the loan shall be secured by a valid equitable / legal mortgage of the land /house / flat purchased / constructed by me /us for which the loan facility is provided by executing / registering such documents in such form as may be decided by the bank. I / We shall, is required by the bank, give such further security as acceptable to the bank forthwith on demand by the bank.   In case it is not possible to create security by way of mortgage as aforesaid I / we shall forthwith  on  demand arrange for other collateral securities, by way of pledge / hypothecation, such as banks fixed deposits, National Savings Certificates, Kisan Vikas Patra, Life Insurance Policies, promissory notes issued by the government, shares or debentures of the companies, sufficient  quantity of gold or gold ornaments or other articles or things acceptable to the banks as security for the loan.  The loan shall also be secured by the guaranty of a person acceptable to the bank and good for the loan amount involved and by mortgage of the guarantor’s property also or pledge /assignment /hypothecation of other securities acceptable to the bank, if need be”. The deceased Vijayan have taken all necessary steps for availing the insurance protection from the second opposite party as per the direction given by the first opposite party. After verifying the agreement and documents submitted by the deceased Vijayan, the first opposite party agreed to advance an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- along with insurance premium amount to the deceased Vijayan.

2.         On 06/03/2020, the first opposite party sent a sanction letter to the deceased Vijayan stating that the first opposite party had decided to sanction the request made by the above Vijayan for an amount of Rs.10,60,132/- i.e., 10,00,000/- towards the housing loan amount and Rs.60,132/- towards the SBI privilege home loan insurance policy coverage from the second opposite party, which is one of the mandatory conditions for availing the loan from the first opposite party. The deceased Vijayan was directed to re pay 10,60,132/- rupees by equal monthly instalments of Rs.9,027/-.  As per the agreement between the complainant and first opposite party the rate of interest was 7.95/- % per annum. The said letter was issued to Vijayan on the same day itself and the terms and conditions set out by the first opposite party was acknowledged by the deceased Vijayan.

2.         The husband of the complainant Sri. Vijayan accidently died during the course of his employment at Malappuram. The deceased Vijayan has got three school going minor children and the aged parents along with the complainant and they are the legal heirs of Vijayan. Deceased Vijayan was the sole bread winner of the complainant and her family.

3.         The  complainant submitted that, since the above said home loan is covered by  the mandatory insurance coverage protection  from the second opposite party,  the complainant  had requested to the first opposite party to close the above said housing the loan  account  due to the  death of the  husband of the complainant  Mr. Vijayan, after availing the  survival benefit from the second opposite party and  set free the complainant and legal heirs of the  above said deceased Vijayan, in connection with the above said  housing loan and also requested first opposite party  to do the  legal formalities  in the savings account of the deceased Vijayan C., as early as possible through a  request letter dated 21/07/2020.

4.         The above said notice was received by the first opposite party on 29/07/2020 and the first opposite party sent a reply notice by denying the liabilities stating as to that the first opposite party is not in a position to close the housing loan account since there is no insurance coverage at all.

5.         The submission of the complainant is that the deceased husband Vijayan approached the first opposite party for home loan and while completing the loan application formalities the first opposite party told to the deceased Vijayan that the person availing the housing loan from the first opposite party, should have insurance policy cover for the loan amount with second opposite party and the same is a mandatory clause in the above said agreement. The first opposite party also made to believe the above said deceased Vijayan that the first opposite party would sanction the premium amount for insurance policy as loan along with the loan amount and the first opposite party also made to believe the above said deceased Vijayan that the first opposite party would do all the formalities or complying the insurance   protection under home loan protection plan.  By believing the words of the first opposite party the above said deceased Vijayan accepted the demands of the first opposite party by fulfilling all the documents required. Thereafter first opposite party had sent a sanction letter dated 06/03/2020 to the deceased Vijayan and the same was acknowledged by him under the above impression as well as the assurance from the first opposite party that, the above said home loan would be covered under the above said mandatory home loan protection plan.

6.         The submission of the complainant is that the above said home loan is covered by the mandatory insurance coverage protection, the first opposite party is bound to close the above said housing loan account immediately after getting the request from the complainant. Instead of that the first opposite party herein intentionally omitted to do the same and caused deficiency in service from the side of the first opposite party and also debited an amount of Rs.83,500/- from the account of the above said deceased Vijayan towards EMI after reported death. Hence the submission is that the act of the opposite parties caused mental agony for the complainant and family. More over the complainant suffered irreparable loss and damages by the act of the opposite parties. The opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant on that she suffered financial loss, inconvenience and mental agony. The prayer of the complainant is to close the housing loan account after availing the survival benefit from the second opposite party, set free the complainant and the other legal heirs of the deceased Vijayan, in connection with the above said housing loan and also direct the first opposite party to do the legal formalities in the savings account of the deceased Vijayan and also to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as monetary loss   suffered by the complainant and also to pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/-  for the mental stress and agony caused to the complainant.

7.         On admission of the complaint, notice was issued to the opposite parties and on receipt of notice the opposite parties entered appearance and filed version denying the entire averments and allegations in the complaint.

8.         The first opposite party filed version contenting that the complaint is devoid of merits, bonofides and to be dismissed in limine with the cost of the opposite party.

9.         The opposite party admitted that the bank had sanctioned a home loan of Rs.10,00,000/-to the complainant’s husband, the deceased Vijayan.  The same sanctioned as SBI privilege / Shaurya Home Loan – new on 06/03/2020.  At the time of sanctioning the bank had sanctioned Rs.10,00,000/- as home loan and Rs.60,132/- as funding of home loan for insurance coverage. The said sanction of funding of home insurance coverage is not an insurance coverage and the same is only a separate loan and merely because the loan was sanctioned to customer for funding insurance policy, it cannot be construed as insurance policy and the borrower will not get insurance coverage unless he purchases the policy of insurance utilizing the said amount or his separate funds.

10.       The borrower is expected to purchase the insurance policy from the insurance company by duly complying with the procedures / requirements of the insurance company with choice of the insurer by the borrower and in this case the borrower Vijayan has not complied with or opted for the purchase of any insurance policy.

11.       There is no mandatory provision that the borrower should have to purchase insurance policy for availing the home loan. Whether the loan should have to be covered by an insurance company is the discretion of the borrower and it is not at all a mandatory requirement for the sanctioning of the housing loan.  Such averment in the complaint is fully incorrect and so the opposite party denied the same. The bank in the instant case sanctioned an amount of Rs.60,132/- as funding of home loan insurance coverage as an additional loan and whether the same is to be availed or not is to be decided by the borrower alone.  It is further submitted that there is no mandatory conditions that the borrower has to purchase SBI privilege home loan policy from the second opposite party for availing home loan.

12.       The deceased husband of complainant Mr. Vijayan, the borrower has not availed the additional loan and has not opted to take an insurance coverage from any insurance company and no insurance has been taken by deceased Vijayan.   Even though the bank had sanctioned Rs.10,00,000/- and additional loan of Rs.60,132/-, the bank reports reveals that the said loan is not availed by the borrower Mr. Vijayan and no amount has been debited from the loan account towards the purchase of insurance policy. The installments fixed by the bank is only towards the loan of Rs.10,00,000/- availed by Vijayan towards the housing loan.  With regard to percentage of interest also what is stated by complainant is not correct. The opposite party submitted that they have explained in 3, 3A of the agreement regarding the percentage of interest

“3.  Rate of interest on loans;

 3A. Loan on floating rate of interest

13.       The effective rate of interest on the amount of the loan will be applied at the rate of 2.8 % above RBI’s REPO RATE which presently 5.15 % P. A as on first day of current calendar quarter and thus the present effective rate on the loan being 7.95 % P.A rising and falling with RBI’s REPO RATE, at monthly rests calculated on the daily balance of the loan amount.  Provided that the bank shall at any time and from time to time be entitled to change the rate of interest depending on changes in RBI’s REPO RATE.

14.       Not withstanding the above the bank is also entitled to increase the rate of interest, at its sole discretion, even if there is no change RBI’s REPO RATE and such revised rate of interest shall always be construed as agreed to be paid by the borrower (s) and here by secured.  Borrowers shall be deemed to have notice of change in the rate of interest whenever the changes in RBI’s REPO RATE or increase in interest rate without any change in RBI’s REPO RATE are either displaced / notified at / by the branch or published in newspaper or made through entry of interest change in the pass book/ statement of account sent to the borrower (s) “.

15.       The opposite party submitted that the complainant had issued a notice to the opposite party and for which the opposite party had issued a reply detailing the fact of the loan transaction and loan agreement. It is submitted that they never stated or directed the said Vijayan mandatorily to purchase an insurance policy from the second opposite party as alleged by the complainant. It is also contended that they never made believe Mr. Vijayan that the first opposite party will do all the formalities for complying the insurance protection for the housing loan and same was communicated to the borrower by the first opposite party   which is incorrect.

16.       The opposite party submitted that the sanction letter and agreement; all are  executed on 06/03/2020 and the opposite party is bound only to act in accordance with the conditions in the sanction letter and in the mutually agreed home loan agreement executed between   deceased Vijayan and the opposite party. Nowhere in the sanctioned letter or in the agreement it is stated that the complainant husband Vijayan ought to have mandatorily taken an insurance policy from SBI Life insurance or any other insurance company for availing home loan. Hence all the allegations in the complaint are only with some ulterior motive and so same is denied by the opposite party.

17.       The opposite party denied the averment that the first opposite party has to close the housing loan account since the said loan is covered by insurance coverage.  There is no mandatory requirement to take an insurance policy for availing the home loan and in this complaint no insurance policy was taken by the borrower either from the second opposite party or from any other insurance company.  Hence there is no insurance coverage and so the bank is not in a position to close the loan account. The opposite party submitted that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice therein from the part of the first opposite party which is a necessary ingredient to attract the Consumer Protection Act.  The opposite party further denied the allegation due to the act of the opposite party caused mental agony to the complainant. Since there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the part of the opposite party, the opposite party is not liable and bound to compensate the complainant as claimed in the complaint. There is no cause of action against the opposite party and so no relief as prayed in the complaint can be granted either on the facts of the case or in terms of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Hence the prayer of the opposite party is to dismiss the complaint by disallowing the claim of the complainant to close the loan account and to pay compensation to the complainant with compensatory cost to the opposite party.

18.     The second opposite party filed version contenting that the commissions have no territorial jurisdiction since the address of the second opposite party is at Mumbai. It is also contended complaint is barred by limitation. The complainant has not furnished details of insurance cover granted to the deceased by the second opposite party. Hence the complainant is frivolous, vexations and an abuse of the process of the law. The complainant has not furnished policy number /proposal number, premium paid etc and so the opposite party is not able to raise the insurance cover claimed by the complainant. The complainant even not furnished the loan account number in the complaint. The complainant herein has not furnished the details of payment regarding the premium for grant of insurance cover to the deceased Vijayan. The opposite party further contended the protection of section 64VB of the insurance act and also submitted the section 25 of Indian Contract Act i.e., without consideration a contract is void.  The opposite party submitted that they did not receive consent cum declaration form and the premium amount for grant of insurance for the deceased. Hence from the averment of the complaint itself it is revealed that the deceased has not granted any insurance cover by the opposite party and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  The opposite party further submitted that mere submission of the proposal form and payment of premium deposit does not lien to insurance cover.  The proposed life to be assured is required to submit the duly filed in and signed proposal form to the insurer. On receipt of the proposal form, the insurer assess the proposal and underwrites the same and if they required raises further requirements from the proposer and after receipt of requirement and on acceptance of the same, the insurance cover is granted and a policy or certificate of insurance is issued. In this complaint, proposal form, which is the basis of contract itself was not received and the premium amount was also not received and so the complaint is not maintainable and is to be dismissed in limine.

19.       The opposite party filed para wise reply to the complaint.

As per the records the deceased was not a consumer of the opposite party and no cause of action has arisen for the complainant to file this complaint and there is no consumer dispute as alleged by the complainant. The opposite party submitted that they have not received any membership form / premium to cover the life of the deceased.  The opposite party is not aware of the loan transaction between the complainant and the deceased. The complainant has not mentioned the loan account number/membership form details, premium paid details, etc to check whether the deceased was covered under the loan account or not.  The proposal form / member ship form is the basis for assessment of risk. In this case the deceased Vijayan has not furnished any of the details to the opposite party. Hence the submission of the opposite party is that they had never granted any insurance cover on the life of the deceased with regard to the loan account number.  As there was no contract of insurance between the deceased and the opposite party, no death benefit is payable to the complainant.

2.         The opposite party is specifically stated that the deceased or the complainant submitted any document to prove the insurance cover against loan. Mere submission of the proposal form or payment of premium deposit does not lead to insurance cover. The proposed life to be assured is required to submitted the duly filled in and signed proposal form to the insurer.

21.       The opposite party further submitted that they are not aware what has transferred between the complainant and deceased and the first opposite party State Bank of India. The opposite party submitted they are not aware of the loan transactions between the deceased Mr. Vijayan and the bank. The submission of the opposite party is that SBI life insurance company limited and SBI are separate and deferent legal entities. The opposite party further denied that the loan account of the deceased is covered under mandatory insurance. The contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has not provided any details to prove that the deceased had applied for insurance cover from the opposite party and had paid the premium and the insurance cover was granted on the life of the deceased. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the second opposite party and the second opposite party is not aware of the EMI deductions done by the first opposite party. The act of the opposite party has not caused any irreparable loss and damages to the complainant. No financial loss, inconvenience and mental agony caused to the complainant due to the act of the second opposite party. The opposite part submitted that they are not liable to close the loan account of the deceased since they have not granted any insurance cover against the loan account of the deceased.  The opposite party is not liable to pay 2,00,000/- rupees as monetary loss and 1,00,000/- rupees on account of mental stress and agony caused to the complainant. The submission of the opposite party is that the complainant is not entitled to get any benefit or gain from the opposite party and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.

22.       The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents.  The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext A1 to A12 and the documents of the opposite party marked as Ext. B1 to B4.  Ext. A1 is copy of loan application. Ext. A2 is copy of agreement executed between husband of the complainant and the first opposite party.  Ext. A3 is copy of arrangement letter issued by the first opposite party to the deceased husband of the complainant.  Ext. A4 is copy of lawyer notice issued for the counsel for the complainant to the first opposite party.  Ext. A5 is postal receipt of lawyer notice. Ext. A6 is acknowledgment card of lawyer notice. Ext. A7 is reply notice issued by the counsel for the first opposite party to the counsel for the complainant.  Ext. A8 is request letter issued by the complainant to the first opposite party. Ext. A9 is postal receipt of request letter Ext. A10 acknowledgement card of request letter.  Ext. A11 is copy of ledger extract issued by the first opposite party to the complainant. Ext. A12 is copy of death certificate of deceased Vijayan Cholayil dated 26/09/2020.  Ext. B1 is copy of loan agreement.  Ext. B2 is copy of account statement from 07/03/2020 to 23/03/2022 page No.1 Ext. B3 is statement of account from 07/03/2020 to 23/03/2022 page No.2, Ext. B4 is copy of reply notice sent by lawyer of first opposite party to the lawyer of complainant. 

23.       Heard complainant and opposite party, perused affidavit and documents. The complainant filed notes of argument also.

The following points arise for consideration: -

1. Whether the husband of the complainant availed loan to take insurance policy as part of the housing loan?
2. Whether availing insurance coverage was compulsory one?
3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Relief and cost?

24.       Point No.1&2

            The first opposite party admitted that the husband of the complainant Mr. Vijayan had applied for a home loan for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and the bank had sanctioned the same on 06/03/2020. The first opposite party further submitted that the complainant had availed another loan of Rs.60,132/- towards the expenditure for the purpose of the insurance coverage. But the opposite party denied the averment of the complainant that the loan is covered by a mandatory insurance coverage protection.  The contention of the opposite party is that there is no such mandatory condition for availing the home loan. The first opposite party further contended that the second opposite party is a different company incorporated as per the provisions of the companies act and it is not at all a subsidiary company or a division of the SBI.  The sanctioning of a loan for funding home loan insurance coverage will not amounts to an insurance coverage but it is only a separate loan.  The loan applicant has to make application and effect the payment to obtain the insurance certificate from the insurance company.  The submission of the first opposite party is that they have no responsibility to get the loan insured.  The discretion either to take or not to take the insurance coverage / policy is totally with the borrower. The opposite party further contended that the borrower Vijayan, the husband of the complainant has not opted for the purchase of any insurance policy and he has not utilized /availed the said fund of Rs.60,132/- for the home loan insurance, as such no amount had been debited in the account towards the purchase of insurance policy. The EMI fixed by the bank is only for the home loan of Rs.10,00,000/- availed by the husband of the complainant. The statement of account produced by the complainant reveals that the sanctioned amount of Rs.60,132/- towards the funding for availing insurance coverage was not debited in his loan account. The instalment fixed by the bank is only towards the housing loan of Rs.10,00,000/- which was availed by the deceased Vijayan.

25.       The complainant submitted that the husband of complainant applied for a financial accommodation of Rs.10,00,000/- by way of SBI privilege home loan from the first opposite party and the same was accepted by the first opposite party. Thereafter the deceased Vijayan and the first opposite party had executed an agreement  for the same on 06/03/2020 with the first opposite party and as per the agreement there is a mandatory condition mentioned in the clause (i) in page No.3 of the agreement which read as follows “The loan shall be secured by a valid equitable /legal mortgage of the land /house /flat purchase /constructed by /me /us for which the loan facility is provided by executing / registering such documents in such form as may be decided by the bank.  I/we shall, is required by the bank, give such further security as acceptable to the bank forthwith on demand by the bank.   In case it is not possible to create security by way of mortgage as aforesaid I/we shall forthwith on demand arrange for other collateral securities, by way of pledge /hypothecation such as banks fixed deposits, national savings certificate, Kissan vikas pathra, life insurance policies, promissory notes issued by the government, shares or debentures of the companies, sufficient quantity of gold or gold ornaments or other articles or things acceptable to the banks as security for the loan. The loan also be secured by the guaranty of a person’s acceptable to the bank and good for the loan amount involve and by mortgage of the guarantor’s property also or pledge/assignment /hypothecation of other securities acceptable to the bank, if need be”. The complainant submitted Ext. A2 to substantiate her contention that insurance policy cover for the loan is a mandatory clause as per the loan agreement. As per Ext. A1 the loan application was for Rs.10,00,000/- only.  But the opposite party sanctioned loan of Rs.10,60,132/- rupees. The wordings in Ext. A3 is as follows “we are pleased to advice that on the basis of document submitted by you and the information furnished by you in your application for home loan dated 04/03/2020,  we have decided to sanction a home loan limit of Rs.10,60,132/- to you, as per the under noted breakup (i) home loan Rs.10,00,000/-(ii) funding of home loan insurance cover (if requested) Rs.60,132/- total Rs.10,60,132/-. On the following terms and conditions. Exercise of option provided in paragraph 13 is mandatory”.  The document further describes how the loan will be disbursed wherein it is specifically mentioned that SBI life premium as Rs.60,132/-. So, it is certain that as per Ext. A3 the loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.10,60,132/- and Rs.60,132/- was specifically granted for SBI life premium.

26. The contention of the complainant is that the deceased husband of the complainant approached the first opposite party for a financial accommodation of Rs.10,00,000/- and in the light of mandatory condition mentioned in the clause (1) in page No.3 of the agreement executed between the deceased husband of the complainant and the first opposite party, the opposite party pleased to sanction a home loan limit of Rs.10,60,132/-. It is to be noted that the loan application Ext. A1 reveals that the prayer of the complainant for the loan was only Rs.10,00,000/-. But the opposite party allowed 60,132/- rupees towards the SBI privilege Home Loan insurance policy coverage from the second opposite party which is evident from Ext. A3. In the absence of separate application for the loan of Rs.60,132/-,it was considered by the first opposite party as the premium amount and allowed as loan in favor of the deceased husband of the complainant. The opposite party directed the complainant to remit by equal monthly instalment of Rs.9,027/- towards the loan. As per documents no separate EMI has been fixed for the repayment of loan amount of Rs.60,132/-. Hence the submission of the complainant is that the first opposite party made to believe the deceased Vijayan that the first opposite party will do all the formalities for complying the insurance protection under the home loan protection plan.  Believing the words of the first opposite party the deceased Vijayan accepted the proposal and demands of the first opposite party and executed the documents as demanded by the first opposite party. 

27.       The complainant further submitted that the second opposite party is an Indian Life insurance Company which was started as joint venture between State Bank of India and French financial institution BNP Paribas Cardiff. State Bank of India has got 55.50% stake in the company. Hence it is submitted that the first opposite party convinced the borrower that it is compulsory to purchase a home loan protection plan to avail the loan and the same is recommended for subsidiary companies like second opposite party by the first opposite party. Hence there is sufficient reason to accept the contention of the complainant that the first opposite party advised for insurance coverage and the premium amount was added to the loan amount accordingly.  So, the contention of the complainant is that it is the liability of the opposite parties to close the loan of the deceased husband of the complainant as per the insurance protection plan for which the first opposite party sanctioned the loan.

28.       But it is pertinent to note the contention of the second opposite party that they have not received any amount as contended in the complaint. There is no document to show that the second opposite party received the premium as contended in the complaint. So, what can be inferred from the documents is that the first opposite party availed loan as claimed by the complainant and also insurance premium amount of 60,132/- rupees towards the insurance protection. But the first opposite party failed to transfer the insurance premium to the second opposite party. The document Ext. A3 clearly shows that the insurance premium amount is set apart towards SBI Life premium. But the first opposite party failed to transfer the amount towards second opposite party. Hence it can be seen that the deceased husband of the complainant availed loan of 10,60,132/- rupees including funding of home loan insurance cover. But the first opposite party fail to transfer insurance premium amount towards the second opposite party.  Hence, we find that the availing of insurance policy was a compulsory one and non-transferring the insurance amount to the account of second opposite party is deficiency in service.

29.       Point No.3

The husband of the complainant was an employee of the Kerala State Electricity Board and he availed loan from the first opposite party. The deceased Vijayan executed an agreement on 06/03/2020 and subsequently the borrower Mr. Vijayan accidently died on 26/04/2020, during his cause of his employment at Malappuram. The deceased Vijayan has got 3 minor children and aged parents along with complainant as legal heirs.  Deceased Mr. Vijayan was the sole bread winner of his family, the complainant. Wife of the deceased Vijayan approached the first opposite party to close the housing loan account due to the death of the husband, after availing the survival benefit from the second opposite party and set free the complainant and other legal heirs of the deceased Vijayan. The complainant further requested the first opposite party to do the legal formalities in the savings account of the deceased Vijayan and presented a request letter dated 21/07/2020. But despite closing the loan account the first opposite party debited an amount of Rs.83,500/- from the account of the above said Vijayan towards EMI after report of death of the borrower. Hence, the complainant approached this commission to redress her grievance by closing the housing loan account after availing the survival benefit from the second opposite party and set free the complainant and other legal hires. The complainant also prayed compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of pecuniary loss and mental stress, agony suffered by the complainant. It is already found that the first opposite party had not transferred the amount of Rs.60,132/- towards the insurance and so the second opposite party is not liable to avail survival benefits as prayed. The first opposite party is being deficient of service by not transferring the insurance premium amount to the second opposite party is liable to avail the survival benefits if at all to the complainant. Hence it will be proper to direct the first opposite party to close the housing loan account as claimed by the complainant. It appears the act of the first opposite party i.e., withdrawing an amount of rupees 83500/-from the account of deceased husband of the complainant as unfair trade practice. So, the first opposite party is further directed to refund Rs.83,500/- to the complainant. It can be seen that due to the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of first opposite party caused much hardship, inconvenience and mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant is entitled for a reasonable amount as compensation and we consider Rs.50,000/- as reasonable amount.   The complainant also entitled cost of Rs.10,000/-.

Considering the entire documents and evidences, the Commission allows the complaint as follows: -

1) The first opposite party is directed to close the loan account of the husband of the complainant treating that the deceased Vijayan is not liable to pay any amount towards the loan since he had availed a loan of Rs.60,132/- towards the insurance premium which the first opposite party failed to transfer in to the account of the second  opposite party.

2) The first opposite party is directed to refund Rs.83,500/- which the first opposite party debited from the account of the husband of the complainant after his death.

3)   The first opposite party is directed to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation to the complainant on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and thereby caused inconvenience, hardship and mental agony to the complainant.

4) The first opposite party is directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.

The first opposite party is directed to comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the above said entire amount of Rs.1,43,500/- will carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order till realization.

Dated this 31^st day of January, 2023.

Mohandasan  K., President

      Preethi Sivaraman C., Member

     Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant: Ext.A1 to A12

Ext.A1: Copy of loan application

Ext.A2: Copy of agreement executed between husband of the complainant and the first opposite party.

Ext A3: Copy of arrangement letter issued by the first opposite party to the deceased husband of the complainant.

Ext A4: Copy of lawyer notice issued for the counsel for the complainant to the first opposite party.

Ext A5: Postal receipt of lawyer notice.

Ext.A6: Acknowledgment card of lawyer notice.

Ext.A7: Reply notice issued by the counsel for the first opposite party to the counsel for the complainant.

Ext A8: Request letter issued by the complainant to the first opposite party.

Ext A9: Postal receipt of request letter

Ext A10: Acknowledgement card of request letter. 

Ext.A11: Copy of ledger extract issued by the first opposite party to the complainant.

Ext.A12: Copy of death certificate of deceased Vijayan Cholayil dated 26/09/2020.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party: Ext. B1 to B4

Ext.B1: Copy of loan agreement. 

Ext.B2: Copy of account statement from 07/03/2020 to 23/03/2022 page No.1

Ext.B3: Copy of account statement from 07/03/2020 to 23/03/2022 page No.2

Ext.B4: Copy of reply notice sent by lawyer of first opposite party to the lawyer of

           complainant.

Mohandasan  K., President

      Preethi Sivaraman C., Member

        VPH                               Mohamed Ismayil C.V., Member