BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no. 188 of 2020
Date of Institution : 01.09.2020
Date of Decision : 10.12.2024.
Bimla Devi aged about 45 years widow of Shri Bansi Lal, resident of village Sadewala, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Indusind Bank Consumer Finance Division, HDR Branch, Sirsa District Sirsa through its authorized person.
2. DHFL Pramerica Life Insurance company Ltd., 4th Floor, Building No.9, Tower-B, Cyber City, DLF Phase III Gurgaon- 122002 Haryana through its authorized person.
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Before: SH. PADAM SINGH THAKUR ……………….PRESIDENT
SMT. SUKHDEEP KAUR …………………… MEMBER
Present: Sh. Preet Amar, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party no.1 already exparte.
Sh. Puneet Narang, Advocate for opposite party no.2.
ORDER
In brief, the case of complainant is that husband of complainant namely Shri Bansi Lal son of Shri Bhip Singh during his life time had purchased a Mahindra Eicher tractor from the authorized dealer of Mahindra company in the year 2014 and he got financed the same through op no.1 which was later on got registered by him vide registration No. HR-44G/2634. That there was a collaboration between ops no.1 and 2 and op no.1 while financing the husband of complainant for purchase of said tractor got him insured under life insurance policy from op no.2 bearing No. GC000027 and a certificate of insurance was also issued in this regard. A sum of Rs.1180.20 was charged from him as premium and as per the aforesaid policy, the sum assured was Rs.1,52,001/- in case of death of the policy holder. The policy was for a period of two years and was valid w.e.f. 06.09.2018 to 05.09.2020 and complainant was the nominee. It is further averred that very purpose behind getting the husband of complainant insured was that in case before completion of the installments of the finance, the creditor is expired, then in that eventuality the op no.1 shall have a liberty to recover the remaining amount from the claim amount to be received by the family of deceased under the insurance policy and the remaining amount shall be payable to the nominee of the deceased. That on 17.12.2019 the husband of complainant had expired and at the time of his death, the aforesaid insurance policy was in existence and has never been lapsed and thus after the death of deceased, the complainant being the nominee of the deceased has become entitled to the remaining sum assured after deduction of the loan amount pending qua the deceased, if any. It is further averred that complainant a number of times contacted the ops in this regard and requested them to deduct the amount of installments of loan and to pay the remaining amount of sum assured to her but the ops kept on avoiding the same with one pretext or the other and now they have flatly refused to pay the same and such act and conduct on the part of ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on account of which she has suffered unnecessary harassment. Hence, this complaint seeking direction to the ops to pay remaining amount of sum assured after deducting installments of loan and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,,00,000/- as compensation for harassment besides payment of litigation expenses etc.
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the ops. Op no.1 failed to appear despite service of notice and as none appeared on behalf of op no.1, therefore, op no.1 was proceeded against exparte.
3. Op no.2 appeared and filed written version raising certain preliminary objections. It is submitted that coverage amount at cover commencement date was Rs.1,52,001/- which reduces every months. The policy was issued on 06.09.2018 and the DLI expired on 17.12.2019 i.e. within 15 months. As per benefit schedule, if the DLI dies in 15 months the coverage amount of Rs.82,275/- becomes payable as per the above mentioned benefit schedule. The total sum payable as per the policy is Rs.82,275/-, out of which a sum of Rs.49,564/- has been paid to Master Policy Holder towards the settlement of outstanding loan and remaining balance of Rs.32711/- has been paid through NEFT in favour of complainant being the nominee under the policy. Thus after paying the said amount, the answering op is not liable to pay any amount under the policy. Remaining contents of complaint are also denied to be wrong and prayer for dismissal of complaint made.
4. The complainant in evidence has tendered documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C8.
5. On the other hand, op no.2 has tendered affidavit of Sh. Varun Anand, Assistant Manager Legal as Ex. RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R4.
6. We have heard learned counsel for complainant as well as learned counsel for op no.2 and also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of op no.2 and also through the case file.
7. There is no dispute of the fact that husband of complainant namely Shri Bansi Lal had purchased a Mahindra Eicher tractor after taking loan amount of Rs.1,52,001/- from the op no.1 bank and in turn op no.1 got him insured under life insurance policy from op no.2 against the sum insured amount of Rs.1,52,001/- for the period 06.09.2018 to 05.09.2020. The complainant was the nominee of life insured. The terms and conditions of the said insurance policy placed on file by complainant herself alongwith certificate of insurance Ex.C2 clearly reveal that in case of death of the insured/ Member(s), the claim amount, if any payable under the Master Policy shall first be utilized for payment to Master Policy holder i.e. bank for the outstanding loan amount as specified in Master Policy holder’s credit account statement and the balance amount, if any payable under the Master Policy will be payable to Insured Member’s nominees/ legal representatives. Further more, the benefit schedule placed on file by complainant herself as Ex.C3 reveals that if deceased life insured dies in 15 months the coverage amount of Rs.82,275/- becomes payable and as such out of total amount of Rs.82,275/-, a sum of Rs.49,564/- has been paid to Master Policy Holder i.e. bank towards the settlement of outstanding loan and remaining balance of Rs.32,711/- has been paid to the complainant under the policy. So the op no.2 has already paid the claim amount to the op no.1 bank and complainant as per terms and conditions of the policy and as such no other amount was payable to the complainant by op no.2 and the complaint deserves dismissal.
8. In view of our above discussion, we do not find any merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed but with no order as to costs. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced: Member President,
Dated: 10.12.2024. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Sirsa.
