Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/314/2023

MRS. KANWALPREET KAUR W/O LATE SH. AMANDEEP SINGH SRA - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI PRUDENTIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

ARJUN KUNDRA

05 Mar 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Additional Bench]

 

[1]

Appeal No.	:	A/314/2023
Date  of  Institution	:	14/11/2023
Date   of   Decision	:	05/03/2024

 

 

 

 

 

Kanwalpreet Kaur W/o. Late Sh. Amandeep Singh Sra R/o. Flat No. 9 Tower A, 5th Floor, Sandwoods Opulencia, Sector 110, Banur- Landran Road, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab – 140307.

….Appellant

Versus

 

1.     ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

 

Having its Branch office at:

 

SCO 1-3, above KFC, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

Having its registered office at:

 

1089, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400025.

 

2.     IIFL House Finance Limited (formerly known as India Infoline Housing Finance Ltd.)

 

Having its Branch Office at:

 

SCO 2907/08, 2^nd Floor, Adjacent to Karnataka Bank, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh – 160022.

 

Having its Corporate Office at:

 

        Plot No. 98, Phase-VI, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122015.

…. Respondents

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER         

PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the Appellant.
		Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
		Sh. Shanu Puri, Advocate Proxy for Sh. Mohit Sareen, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

[2]

Appeal No.	:	A/82/2024
Date  of  Institution	:	22/02/2024
Date   of   Decision	:	05/03/2024

 

 

 

 

 

ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

 

Having its Branch Office at:

 

SCO 1-3, above KFC, Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

Having its registered office at:

 

1089, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai – 400025.

 

….Appellant

Versus

 

1.     Mrs. Kanwalpreet Kaur W/o. Late Sh. Amandeep Singh Sra R/o. Flat No. 9 Tower A, 5th Floor, Sandwoods Opulencia, Sector 110, Banur- Landran Road, SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab – 140307.

 

2.     IIFL House Finance Limited (formerly known as India Infoline Housing Finance Ltd.)

 

Having its Branch Office at:

 

SCO 2907/08, 2^nd Floor, Adjacent to Karnataka Bank, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh – 160022.

 

Having its Corporate Office at:

 

        Plot No. 98, Phase-VI, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122015.

 

…. Respondents

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER         

PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

PRESENT	:	Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate for the Appellant.
		Sh. Amandeep Singh, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
		Sh. Shanu Puri, Advocate Proxy for Sh. Mohit Sareen, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.

 

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

 

 

1.         MA No.877 of 2023 & MA No.186 of 2024                

                M.A. No. 877 of 2023 has been filed by the Appellant – Kanwalpreet Kaur in Appeal No. 314 of 2023 for condonation of delay of 11 days in filing the appeal. While, M.A. No.186 of 2024 has been filed by the Appellant – ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. in Appeal No. 82 of 2024 for condoning the delay of 118 days (as per office 111 days) in filing the appeal. 

                For the reasons stated in the said applications, we are of the considered view that the applicant/appellant have been able to satisfy that there had been a sufficient cause for not preferring an appeal within the stipulated period.  

                In this view of the matter, both the misc. applications aforesaid stand allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

                Accordingly, MA No.877 of 2023 & MA No.186 of 2024 stands dispose off. 

2.         By this order, this Commission would like to dispose of above captioned two appeals, as both of them have been originated from Consumer Complaint No. 87 of 2021 which was partly allowed by the Learned District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh vide order dated 01.09.2023, with the following order: -

“15.    Hence, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.1 is directed to release an amount of Rs.46,80,329/- (Rs.47,93,516/- minus Rs.1,13,187/- already paid by OP No.1 to OP No.2 i.e. 80% of the total premium amount) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 04.06.2020 till the date of actual refund/release to OP No.2 towards the balance outstanding principal loan amount account No.844903. OP No.2 is also directed to accept and adjust the above said amount towards settlement of the Housing Loan Account No.844903 and issue an acknowledgement/ loan settlement to the complainant after receiving the balance loan amount, if any (in case the loan amount is excessive than the awarded amount) or pay the balance amount to the complainant, if any (in case the loan amount is lesser than awarded amount).

16.     This order be complied with by the OPs jointly and severally, within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.”

3.         Appeal No. 314 of 2023 – “Kanwalpreet Kaur Vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Limited and Anr.” has been filed by the Complainant seeking modification/ enhancement of the compensation. While, Appeal No. 82 of 2023 – “ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kanwalpreet Kaur & Anr.” has been filed by Opposite Party No.1 - Insurance Company seeking setting-aside of the order dated 01.09.2023, passed by the Learned District Commission.

 

4.         For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeals, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Learned Lower Commission.

 

Factual scenario:

 

5.         This case pertains to the death of Sh. Amandeep Singh Sra son of Mewa Singh who had died due to gunshot injury.  Undisputedly, both Smt. Kanwalpreet Kaur and Sh. Amandeep Singh Sra availed a housing loan from IIFL House Finance Ltd. (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as the ‘IIFL’) for purchasing a residential property bearing Flat No. 40, Tower-A, 20^th Floor, Sandwoods Opulencia, Sector 110, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. The said loan was secured under the ICICI Pru Group Loan Secure Policy bearing no. 23443596 being a master policy issued by ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as the ‘insurance company’).  Sh.Amandeep Singh Sra and Smt. Kanwalpreet Kaur took the insurance policy from the insurance company for the purpose of insuring the loan amount in the event of death of any of the Applicants or in case of suffering from any terminal illness in future. On 06.06.2019, somebody informed Mewa Singh, father of Amandeep Singh Sra that his dead body is lying in a motor car, therefore DDR No.08 dated 06.06.2019 was registered under Section 174 Cr.P.C., Police Station Sohana. Investigations were conducted by S.I. Parkash Masih, Police Station Sohana and thereafter, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, City-2, Distt. S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali. They reached to the conclusion that death was accidental. It is proper to reproduce the relevant portion of the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Policy, City-2, Distt. S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, hereinunder:-         

 

“…… Death of Amandeep Singh alias Aman was due to sudden and accidental bullet fire took place from his licensee pistol and which bullet targeted his head and caused to his death. In this case, nobody was at fault and the reason of death is established as sudden and accidental bullet fire from his licensee pistol. As per the investigation and enquiry conducted by S.I., Parkash Masih and verification and enquiry done by S.H.O. Police Station Sohana and also investigation and enquiry conducted by me, it is found that Amandeep Singh alias Aman S/o Mewa Singh died due to sudden and accidental bullet fir which targeted his head which caused to his death. In this case, nobody is at fault.”

 

6.          The claim was submitted to the insurance company which was not accepted and rather only 80% of the premium deposited by the deceased life assured was refunded to the extent of ₹1,13,187/-. Hence, the Complainant filed the Consumer Complaint before the Learned District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties, praying for the following reliefs:-   

“i.   Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to discharge their obligation under the ICICI Prudential Group Loan Security Policy No. 23443596 by paying the sum insured amounting to Rs.95,87,032/- (Rupees Ninety Five Lacs Eighty Seven Thousand and Thirty Two Only), along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum since 01.03.2020 till the release of the payment as the Complainant has submitted all the necessary documents for the processing of the insurance claim.

 

      Or, Alternatively

 

      Direct the Opposite Party No.1 to release to the Opposite Party No.2 an amount equivalent to the total balance outstanding principal loan amount from the above mentioned total claim amount towards the settlement of the Housing Loan Account No. 844903and Opposite Party No.2 be directed to accept and adjust the said amount towards the full and final settlement of the Housing Loan Account No. 844903 and forthwith issue an acknowledgement/ loan settlement letter to the Complainant and the balance claim amount be paid to the Complainant.

 

ii.   Direct the Opposite Party No.2 not to harass the Complainant through their officials, recovery agents or employees, through repeated phone calls and notices till the pendency of the present Complaint.

 

iii.   Direct the Opposite Parties to jointly and severally pay an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) to Complainant towards the mental agony and harassment caused by the actions of Opposite Parties.

 

iv.   Direct the Opposite Parties to jointly and severally pay Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) as the cost of litigation to the Complainant.

 

v.   Pass any other order as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.”

 

Written Statement filed by Opposite Party No.1:-

 

7.         The Opposite Party No.1 (ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.) contested the complaint and filed written statement wherein it was stated that it had received the death claim intimation form on 27.09.2019, wherein it was mentioned that the deceased life assured had died on 06.06.2019 while sitting in his car.  Since the death of the deceased life assured was within one year from the issuance of the policy, the same was investigated through an independent Investigator under clause 14(2) of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Protection of Policyholder's Interest) Regulations-2017 in order to verify the authenticity of the claim. During the investigation, it was confirmed that the life assured in fact committed suicide. Based on the said findings, it was concluded that the life assured had committed suicide within one year. It was also stated that the policy terms and conditions are in line with Clause 6 (d) of IRDA (Non-Linked Insurance Products) Regulations, 2013, wherein it is clearly listed that the Company shall accept the claim and pay only 80% of the total premium received in case of death of the life assured due to suicide within 1 year from the policy issuance. Hence, OP No. 1 Company had paid 80% of the premium amount as the member had committed suicide within one year from the date of commencement of the policy. The said mandate is mentioned in Chapter III, Regulation 6(d) of the IRDAI Non Linked Regulations, 2013 as reproduced below:

“In case of death due to suicide, within 12 months from the date of inception of the policy, the nominee of the policyholder shall be entitled to at least 80% of the premiums paid or from the date of revival of the policy, the nominee of the policyholder shall be entitled to a minimum of the surrender value / policy account value, as available on the date of death”.

 

                Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, Opposite Party No.1 prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

Written Statement filed by Opposite Party No.2:-

 

8.         Opposite Party No.2 (IIFL Home Finance Limited) filed its separate reply, inter alia, pleading that the complainant alongwith her husband (since deceased) made an application for availing the facility of the loan and were sanctioned financial facility aggregating to Rs.54,12,434/- vide Prospect Number 844903 dated 31.07.2018 which was to be repaid in 240 monthly installments of Rs.48,004/- at floating rate of interest of 13.95% on monthly reducing basis with monthly rest. The borrowers for securing the loan amount also mortgaged their property bearing Flat Number 40, Tower-A, 20th Floor, Sector 110, Sandwoods Opulencia, Mohali. It was stated that Opposite Party No.2 has no role to play in this complaint, as Opposite Party No.2 has just forwarded the request of purchase of group insurance policy and the said group insurance policy was provided to Late Aamandeep Singh Sra by OP No.1. The Insurance premium of Rs.1,66,952/- was paid by Opposite Party No.2 to Opposite Party No.1 at the instance of the deceased borrower and therefore, they have no role to play in either providing the insurance policy or to assess the insurance claim of the deceased. It was the sole prerogative of Opposite Party No.1 to provide the Group Insurance Policy of the deceased and to assess the claim of the deceased, if any. Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the Opposite Party No.2 prayed for dismissal of the Complaint.

 

Replications:-

 

9.         In the replications filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in her complaint and controverted those of Opposite Parties no.1 and 2.

 

Evidence filed by the parties

 

10.         The contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and numerous documents before the Learned District Commission.

 

Decision of the District Commission:-

 

11.         The Learned District Commission after hearing the contesting parties and on going through the material available on record partly allowed the consumer complaint, in the manner stated above.

 

12.         Hence this appeal.

 

13.         We have heard Learned Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care and circumspection.

 

Observations and findings of this Commission:-

 

14.         In this case, the following questions have arisen for determination: -

 

(i)     Whether death of LA – Amandeep Singh Sra was suicide or accidental?

 

(ii)    To which extent the Complainant is entitled to receive the claim?

 

15.         In this case, the following facts are admitted:-

 

(i)     Loan to the tune of ₹54,12,434/- was taken by Sh. Amandeep Singh Sra (deceased life assured) and his wife Smt. Kanwalpreet Kaur from IIFL.

 

(ii)    The said loan was insured under the ICICI Pru Group Loan Secure Policy bearing No. 23443596 being a maser policy issued by ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. The subject policy was valid from 09.08.2018 till 09.08.2033.

 

(iii)   Sh. Amandeep Singh Sra (deceased life assured) died on 06.06.2019 due to gunshot injury i.e. within a period of 10 months from the date of commencement of the policy.

   

16.         Now, coming to the first question whether death of LA – Amandeep Singh Sra was suicide or accidental?

 

17.         Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the insurance company had paid the 80% of the premium amount as the life assured had committed suicide.  In this regard, reliance has been placed upon Clause 7 of the policy, which deals with the term ‘Suicide’ and the same reads as thus:-

 

“7. Suicide: If a member, whether sane or insane, commits suicide within one year from the date of commencement of cover, 80% of premium paid, in respect of such a member will be payable.”

 

18.         The Complainant has placed on record the Post Mortem Examination Report dated 06.06.2019 (Annexure C-4), wherein the cause of death is injury to the vital organ i.e. brain as a result of firearm which is sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Undisputedly, there is no eye witness of the occurrence. Some passerby has seen the dead body of Sh. Amandeep Singh Sra on the driver seat of the car and ultimately, informed his father – Mewa Singh. Thus, Mewa Singh is not an eye witness. He reported the matter to the police and stated that his son had suffered losses in the business and committed suicide by fire shot on his head with a pistol. Later on, the police conducted investigation. In his investigation report dated 29.08.2019 (Annexure C-6), Sub Inspector Prakash Masih has reported that it was not a suicide case, but the death of the husband of the Complainant was due to a sudden and accidental bullet fire from his licensed pistol which has hit him in his head. Thereafter, Station House Officer, Sohana submitted his report dated 30.08.2019 (Annexure C-7), wherein he also reiterated the same version. Ultimately, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali accepted the investigation report and opined that it was accidental death as the pistol goes off accidentally and it caused fatal injury. The said report was accepted by Senior Superintendent of Police, District S.A.S. Nagar on 27.09.2019 (Annexure C-10) and was forwarded to the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate, who vide letter dated 14.02.2020 (Annexure C-13) has accepted the report under Section 174 Cr.P.C. to the effect that the death of deceased Amandeep Singh Sra was accidental and not suicidal.  

 

19.         It has specifically been pleaded in the reply as well as grounds of appeal by the Insurance Company that in order to obtain wrongful monetary gains, the family members of the life assured have attempted to manipulate the facts in order to defraud the company by projecting a suicide as an accidental death. The insurance company has referred in the reply as well as grounds of appeal that some statements were recorded by its Surveyor etc. However, those are not admissible in law. No inference can be drawn that the family members of the deceased had manipulated the facts in order to defraud the insurance company. Rather illustration (e) attached to Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides the Court may presume the judicial and official acts have been regularly performed. In the absence of any cogent evidence or material, the investigation reports aforesaid cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, the report of the Senior Superintendent of Police, District S.A.S. Nagar, which was accepted by the concerned Sub Divisional Magistrate, is to be relied upon by this Commission that the death of deceased Amandeep Singh Sra was accidental and not suicidal.  

 

20.         Now, adverting to the second question to which extent the Complainant is entitled to receive the claim?

 

21.         Admittedly, the insurance company and IIFL entered into contract of insurance vide Master Policy under the Group Loan Secure Plan bearing no. 23443596 which is a group term insurance cover linked to the housing loan, for the purpose of insuring customers who are granted housing loans by IIFL to cover the loan amount and are eligible to be covered under the master policy.   

 

22.         Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that as per Clause 2 of the policy, the Appellant/ Complainant is entitled to additional accidental death benefit, which has erroneously not been granted by the Learned District Commission. He has submitted that accidental death benefit is an additional benefit and will be paid in addition to the death benefit. For ready reference the said Clause 2 is reproduced hereinbelow: -

 

“Additional Accidental Death Benefit:- Accidental Death Benefit is an additional benefit and in the event of death due to an accident, Accidental Death Benefit will be payable. Your Accidental Death Benefit is same as your Death Benefit. This is an additional benefit and will be paid in addition to the Death Benefit. Upon payment of this Benefit, your risk cover will cease and your membership under the Master Policy will terminate.

 

No benefit shall be payable on maturity.”

 

 

23.         As against it, Learned Counsel for the insurance company contended that the term ‘accident’ pertains only to motor vehicle accident and not other accident.  We have considered the contention, but it carries no weight, in as much as, no material produced before us showing the definition of term ‘accident’ in this case.

 

24.         The Hon’ble Patna High Court in “Kamlawati Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Others”, decided on 01.07.2002, elaborately discussed the term ‘Accident’, in Para 27 and 28 of the judgment, which reads as thus:-

 

“27.  Let us first take the word 'Accident'. Back's Law Dictionary, seventh edition defines accident to mean as follows:-

 

accident, 1. An unintended and unforeseen injurious occurrence; something that does not occur in the usual course of" events or that could not be reasonable anticipated. 2. Enquity practice. An unforeseen and injurious occurrence not attributable to mistake, neglect, or misconduct-accidental, adj.

 

The word "accident" in accident policies means an event which takes place without one's foresight or expectation. A result, though unexpected, is not an accident; the means or cause must be accidental. Death resulting from voluntary physical exertions or from intentional acts of the injured is not accidental, nor is disease or death caused by the vicissitudes of climate or atmosphere the result of an accident; but where, in the act which precedes an injury, something unforseen or unusual occurs which produces the injury, the injury results through accident." 1A John Alan Appleman & Jean Appleman Insurance law and" Practice : 360, at 455 (rev. vol. 1981).

 

Policies of liability insurance as well as property and personal injury insurance frequently limit coverage to losses that are caused by 'accident'. In attempting to accommodate the layman '$ understanding of the term, Courts have broadly defined the word to mean an occurrence which is unforeseen, unexpected, extraordinary, either by virtue of the fact that it occurred at all, or because of the extent of the damage. An accident can be either a sudden happening or a slowly evolving process like the percolation of harmful substance through the ground. Qualification of a particular incident as an accident seems to depend on two criteria: the degree of for eseeability, and (2), the state of mind of the actor in intending or not intending the result." John F. Dobbyan, Insurance Law in a Nutshell 128 (3d ed. 1996).

 

 

28.   Stround's Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, sixth edition defines accident as follows:-

 

Accident; Accidental; Accidentally. The Courts have established a long line of cases which identify the essential characteristics of an accident as an event which was neither expected nor intended and which causes hurt or loss Hensey v. White (1990) 1 Q.B. 481; Fenton v. Thorley (1903) A.C. 433; Boyle v. Wright (1969) V.L.R. 699; R. v. Pico (1971) R.T.R. 500.

 

In deciding for the purposes of an insurance policy whether an event was "accidental" a distinction has to be made whether the cause was the deliberate taking of an appreciated risk, and therefore, not accident Gray v. Barr (1971) 2. Q.B. 554, where a person intending to scare another with a gun shot him; held not accident), and cases where the cause (such as excessive drinking) although a deliberate act, led to the taking of a risk such as dangerous driving which was not deliberate and not appreciated but which was nevertheless the immediate cause of the event Chief Constable of West Midlands Police v. Bellingham (1979) 1 W.L.R. 747.

 

 

25.         Further, the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in “Maya Devi Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India”, decided on 21.05.2008, interpreted the word ‘Accident’ in Para 10 of the judgment, which reads as thus: -

 

“10.  Further, in England law on the subject is settled. In Halsbury's Laws of England Vol. 25 Pg.307 Para 569, 4th Edition (2003 reissue), as to the meaning of the word 'accident', it is stated as under:

 

569. Meaning of 'accident'. The event insured against may be indicated in the policy solely by reference to the phrase 'injury by accident' or the equivalent phrase 'accidental injury', or it may be indicated as 'injury caused by or resulting from an accident'. The word 'accident', or its adjective 'accidental', is no doubt used with the intention of excluding the operation of natural causes such as old age, congenital or insidious disease or the natural progression of some constitutional physical or mental defect; but the ambit of what is included by the word is not entirely clear. It has been said that what is postulated is the intervention of some cause which is brought into operation by chance so as to be fairly describable as fortuitous. The idea of something haphazard is not necessarily inherent in the word; it covers any unlooked for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed, or any unexpected personal injury resulting from any unlooked for mishap or occurrence. The test of what is unexpected is whether the ordinary reasonable man would not have expected the occurrence, it being relevant that a person with expert knowledge, for example of medicine, would have regarded it as inevitable. The stand point is that of the victim, so that even willful murder may be accidental as far as the victim is concerned.

 

 

26.         Clause 2 of the policy, which has been reproduced supra, deals with ‘Additional Accidental Death Benefit’.  In our view, Clause 2 clarifies that the accidental death benefit is the same as death benefit. Perusal of the policy certificate (Annexure A-2) shows that sum assured benefit payable on death or terminal illness is ₹48,37,050/- and accidental death benefit is also ₹48,37,050/-. Total premium paid is shown to be ₹1,66,951/- which includes ₹1,46,803/- as premium for benefit payable on death or terminal illness and ₹20,148/- towards premium for accidental death. Meaning thereby, the deceased life assured had paid extra premium for accidental death benefit. Admittedly, the subject policy commenced w.e.f. 09.08.2018 and the life assured died on 06.06.2019, so the life assured died within a period of 10 months from the date of commencement of the Policy. The policy coverage schedule (attached with Annexure A-2) clearly shows that in the 10^th policy month, the death benefit comes to ₹47,93,516/- and the accidental death benefit also comes to ₹47,93,516/-.

 

27.         In this view of the matter, we are of the concerted opinion that the Appellant/Complainant is entitled to the death benefit of ₹47,93,516/- as well as additional accidental death benefit to the tune of ₹47,93,516/-.  As such, the orders passed by the Learned District Commission granted only death benefit to the Complainant/Appellant needs modification.  However, it is made clear that, since the Complainant availed loan facility from the IIFL, for purchasing a residential property, it will have the first charge of the amount payable, to the extent, the same is due to be paid by her (complainant). After making the payment of loan amount upto date, the remaining amount shall be paid to the Complainant/Appellant, alongwith interest.

 

28.         In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, the Appeal No.82 of 2024 titled as “ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kanwalpreet Kaur & Anr.”, being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.

 

29.         No other point was urged by the Counsel for the Parties.

 

30.         In view of above, Appeal No. 314 of 2023 – “Kanwalpreet Kaur Vs. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.”, stands partly accepted.  The orders of the Learned District Commission are modified and Respondents/Opposite Parties are directed as under:-

 

(i)     Opposite Party No.1 is directed to make the payment of entire loan amount outstanding, along with upto date interest accrued thereon, out of the death benefit of ₹47,93,516/- (minus ₹1,13,187/- already paid by OP No.1 to OP No.2 i.e. 80% of the total premium amount)  and additional accidental death benefit of ₹47,93,516/- payable to the Complainant/ Appellant and thereafter, the balance amount shall be paid to the Appellant/Complainant along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of death i.e. 06.06.2019 till realization. 

 

(ii)    Opposite Party No.2 is also directed to issue an acknowledgement/ loan settlement to the complainant after receiving the balance loan amount forthwith.

 

(iii)   This order be complied with by the Opposite Parties jointly and severally, within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the awarded amount shall carry interest @12% p.a., instead of 9% p.a. from the date of death i.e. 06.06.2019 till realization.

 

31.         All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

 

32.         Certified copy of this order be placed on the records of A/82/2024 – ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Kanwalpreet Kaur & Anr.

 

33.         Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.  

 

34.         The files be consigned to the Record Room, after due completion.

Pronounced

05^th March, 2024                                                                       

                                         Sd/-                         

                                (JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”