STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. | : | 32 of 2012 | Date of Institution | : | 20.01.2012 | Date of Decision | : | 01.06.2012 |
ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd., ICICI Pru Life Tower, 1089, Appa Saheb Maratha Marg, Prabha Devi, Mumbai – 400025 Old Address:- 4th Floor, Stanrose House, Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai. ……Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 V e r s u s1. Japji Kaur Cheema d/o Sh.H.S.Cheema r/o H.No.1126, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh. ....Respondent/Complainant. 2. ICICI Home Finance Co. Ltd., SCO 129-130, Sector 9, Chandigarh. Also at:- ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumabi. ....Respondent/Opposite Party No.1 and 2. Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (Retd.), PRESIDENT. MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER. Argued by: Sh. S.R. Bansal, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Vishal Ahuja, Advocate for respondent no.1. Sh. Rohit Suri, Advocate proxy for Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for respondent no.2. PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (Retd.), PRESIDENT 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.12.2011, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it accepted the complaint, and directed Opposite Party No.3 (now appellant), as under:- “As a result of the above discussion, the complaint is dismissed qua OPs No.1 and 2. The complaint is accepted qua OP No.3 only and the OP No.3 is directed to make the payment of Rs.90,372.91 to the complainant along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization and Rs.10,000/- as costs of litigation within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy”. 2. The facts, in brief, are that housing loan, in the sum of Rs.1,02,68,000/-, was sanctioned, in favor of the complainant, vide letter dated 27.06.2008, by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The complainant was also issued life insurance policy No.09690901, with date of commencement as 22.08.2008, as part of the loan agreement, against one time premium of Rs.2,68,000/-. It was stated that a sum of Rs.19,474/- was refunded to her, out of the premium amount of Rs.2,68,000/-. After sometime, the complainant decided to foreclose her loan. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, charged Rs.2,30,227/-, as prepayment/foreclosure charges, from her, which were paid under protest, as there was no clause, in the loan agreement, with regard to the payment thereof. It was further stated that the complainant surrendered the insurance policy with a request to Opposite Party No.1, to refund the amount of premium. Despite her repeated requests, only a sum of Rs.1,49,505.09 was credited to her account on 06.05.2009 against Rs.2,48,253/-. It was further stated that if the amount of premium for a period of 20 years was Rs.2,48,253/-, then the premium for 8 months, came to be Rs.8275/-, whereas Opposite Party No.3, had deducted Rs.98,647.91 out of Rs.2,48,253/-, which was illegal. A legal notice dated 03.11.2009 (Annexure C-3) , was also served upon the Opposite Parties for refund of the excess amount, charged form her, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed. 3. Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in their written version admitted that a loan in the sum of Rs.1,02,68,000/-, vide letter dated 27.06.2008, was sanctioned, in favour of the complainant. It was stated that, on account of pre-closure of loan, before the expiry of normal duration of payment, prepayment charges were demanded, as per the loan sanction letter Annexure A @2%, on the amount prepaid including the amount prepaid in the last one year. It was further stated that since the prepayment charges, on account of premature closure of loan, by the complainant, were charged by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement, they were neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied being wrong. 4. Opposite Party No.3, in its written version, stated that it was mandatory to obtain the insurance policy, in favour of the complainant, by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. It was further stated that according to clause 3(b)(ii) of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if there was full repayment of loan, then the policy holder was entitled to the surrender value. It was further stated that, in the present case, after surrender of the insurance policy, the amount of Rs.1,49,505.09, was credited to the account of the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant enjoyed the life cover, until the policy was cancelled. It was further stated that since the amount of refund of the insurance premium, was, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, Opposite Party No.3, was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. 5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case. 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.3. 8. We have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 9. The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.3, submitted that the District Forum, in paragraph no.15, of the impugned order, wrongly held that Opposite Party No.3, had not placed on record, the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, that in case of full repayment of loan, the policy holder was entitled to the surrender value. He further submitted that alongwith the reply, filed by Opposite Party No.3, photocopy of the policy document Annexure B, was submitted, which is at page 69 of the District Forum file. He further submitted that according to Clause 3(b)(ii) of the policy document, in case of full prepayment of loan or restructuring of loan resulting in full prepayment or transfer of loan to another financial institution/Company/Bank, which is not a subsidiary or branch of the Bank, the life cover shall cease and the surrender value shall become payable, as long as the same is at least Rs.250/-, computed as 70% of the premium paid outstanding terms of life divided by total premium of life cover. He further submitted that according to this Clause, the surrender value was worked out and credited to the account of the complainant. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, to the effect, that since the insurance policy was for the period of 20 years and the one time premium was Rs.2,48,253/-, the premium for 8 months, for which period the policy remained, in subsistence, came to be Rs.8,275/-, being against the terms and conditions of the policy document, referred to above, is illegal and liable to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent no.1 submitted that no affidavit was filed by Opposite Party No.3, in support of the averments, contained in its written version. He further submitted that even the policy document Annexure B, being in loose form, it could not be said that it related to the policy, which was obtained by the complainant, at the time of sanction of loan, in her favour. He further submitted that, under these circumstances, the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld. 11. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the parties, and the evidence, on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that loan, in the sum of Rs.1,02,68,000/-, was sanctioned and disbursed in favor of the complainant, by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. There is hardly any dispute, with regard to the factum, that the insurance policy, at the time of sanction of loan, was issued by Opposite Party No.3, in favour of the complainant, on payment of one time premium of Rs.2,68,000/-. It is an admitted case of the parties, that the complainant preclosed the loan, advanced in her favour, before the expiry of the normal duration thereof, and paid the prepayment charges. The question that arises, for consideration, is, as to whether Opposite Party No.3, was entitled to deduct any amount from the premium, paid by the complainant, at the time of taking the policy, when it ceased to subsist, after the prepayment of loan, before the expiry of normal duration thereof. As stated above, alongwith its written version, copy of the policy document Annexure B, at page 69 of the District Forum file, was submitted by Opposite Party No.3. The parties were governed by the terms and conditions, contained in this policy document. Clause 3(b)(ii) of this policy document reads as under:- “In case of the full prepayment of the loan or restructuring of the loan resulting in full prepayment or transfer of the Loan to another Financial Institution/Company/Bank, which is not a subsidiary or branch of the Bank, the Life cover shall cease and the Surrender Value shall become payable as long as the same is at least Rs.250/-. The Surrender Value is computed as below:- 70% of the Premium Paid * outstanding terms of Life Cover Total premium of Life Cover”. 12. The authenticity of this document, was not at all challenged, by the complainant, during the pendency of the complaint. In case, this document did not relate to the policy, which was issued, in favour of the complainant, at the time of advancement of loan, by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, then the policy document, in her possession, for decision of the complaint, could be produced by her, to prove that no such term existed therein. However, the complainant did not take the trouble to produce such document, though in her possession, on record, to rebut Annexure B, the policy document, attached by Opposite Party No.3, alongwith its reply. When it was an admitted case of the parties, that insurance policy was issued, in favour of the complainant, by Opposite Party No.3, at the time of advancement of loan by Opposite Parties No.1 and 2, the question of submission of affidavit, in respect of this policy document by Opposite Party No.3, did not all arise. The authenticity of Annexure B, policy document, therefore, could not be said to be doubtful. It was, in accordance with Clause 3(b)(ii), referred to above, that the surrender value was worked out, and a sum of Rs. 1,49,505.09, was credited to her account. The District Forum, thus, was wrong in coming to the conclusion, without going through the policy document Annexure B, referred to above, that Opposite Party No.3, was only entitled to deduct Rs.8,275/-, proportionately, for a period of 8 months, whereafter, the policy ceased to subsist. The order of the District Forum, in this regard, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside. 13. No doubt, no affidavit, was produced, by Opposite Party No.3, in support of the averments, contained in its written version. It may be stated here, that when the facts are almost admitted, even in the absence of production of any affidavit, in support of the averments, contained in the written version of Opposite Party No.3, the merits of the case, were not going to be affected. As stated above, the parties were governed by the terms and conditions, contained in the policy document Annexure B, which has been held to be authentic, as no contrary evidence, was produced by the complainant, to disprove the authenticity thereof. The submission of the Counsel for the complainant/respondent no.1, that, in the absence of production of any affidavit by Opposite Party No.3, it failed to prove its case, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 14. There was neither any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the appellant/Opposite Party No.3, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Forum, was wrong, in coming to the contrary conclusion. 15. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties. 16. The order, passed by the District Forum, being not based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 17. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, is accepted with costs, quantified at Rs.5,000/-. The order of the District Forum is set aside. 18. Certified Copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge. 19. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced. June 1, 2012 Sd/- [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (Retd.)] PRESIDENT Sd/- [NEENA SANDHU] MEMBER Rg
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
