Date of filing:09.01.2018
Date of Disposal:27.01.2023
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 27th DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.65/2018
PRESENT:
-
SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR:MEMBER
Sri Venkatesh.R
S/o late Ramakrishnamappa
Aged about 30 years
Residing at No.11
Gollahalli Village
Masthi Hobli
Malur Taluk 563 137…COMPLAINANT
(Sri Shashikumar R Adv. For Complainant)
Kotak Life Insurance
The Manager
# 59, Sree Complex
BHSC, T Block
Banashankari, 3rd Stage
Bangalore 560 085.…OPPOSITE PARTY No.1
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,
Branch Office, The Manager
# 59, Sree Complex
BHSC, T Block
Banashankari, 3rd Stage
Bangalore 560 085.…OPPOSITE PARTY No.2
(Sri Kapil Dixit Adv. For Opposite party No.1)
(Smt Shruthi R Adv. For Opposite party No.2)
*****
//JUDGEMENT//
BY SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR, MEMBER
The present complaint is filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 with a prayer to direct the Opposite party No.1 to pay an amount of Rs.5,72,299/- which is complete loan amount under loan agreement No.TFE/432900 and to direct Opposite party No.2 to issue No Objection Certificate for the above said loan account after collecting the outstanding amount from the Opposite party No.1 and further direct Opposite party No.1 and 2 to pay the damages of Rs.2,00,000/- jointly and severally to the complainant and also prayed to grant such other reliefs as this commission feel fit in the interest of justice and equity.
2. Brief facts of the complaint is that Opposite party No.1 is an insurance company which provides vehicle insurance and also life insurance. Opposite party No.2 is the bank involved in the business which provides finance facilities to all kinds of vehicles. The father of the complainant availed a loan facility from Opposite party No.2 for the purchase of the Tractor-MASSEY FERGUSON 5245 PD TR under the loan agreement bearing No. TFE-4342900 for a sum of Rs.4,81,125/- on 04.06.2016. The instalment payment was fixed for Rs.44,023/- for quarterly into 16 installments. It is further submitted that the father of the complainant also purchased Kotak Life Insurance Policy dated 03.05.2016 for the sum of Rs.4,75,000/- under the same loan ID of Opposite Party No.2 under the Kotak Complete Cover Group Plan, Certificate of Insurance policy No.000014-Q747900 and Loan ID- TFE-4342900 policy term is for the period of 03.05.2016 to 02.05.2020. The complainant submits that as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the said plan “in case of the death of the borrower of the loan the outstanding principal loan amount is to be paid directly by the Opposite party No.1 to Opposite party No.2.”
3. The complainant further submits that in the said policy Opposite party No.1 wrongly mentioned the names i.e. in the place of nominee, the name of the insured mentioned and in the place of the name of the insured, the nominee name is mentioned.
4. This being the fact the father of the complainant died on 02.03.2017. Till his death the father of the complainant was paying regular quarterly instalments towards the said loan with Opposite party No.2. At the time of the death of the father of the complainant the outstanding said loan amount was Rs.5,72,299/-.
5. When the complainant approached the Kotak Life Insurance office at Kolar to make the rectification of the wrong mentions of names in the columns of nominee and insured and also made a request to pay the outstanding amount of the said loan. The Opposite party No.1 refused to provide the same. The complainant made several requests to OP No.1 to do the needful and provide relevant documents pertaining to the said insurance but of no use. Further the complainant gave representation through customer care helpline. There also they have not taken any action.
6. The complainant submits that Opposite party No.2 also refused to issue no objection certificate for the aforesaid loan. Instead of it, demanded the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.5,72,499/- and also threatened to take away the above mentioned vehicle forcibly in case of failure to pay the said foreclosure amount and misbehaved with the complainant.
7. The complainant issued legal notice on 10.01.2017 the said legal notice duly served upon the Opposite parties, they have not complied with terms of the said legal notice and also have not reply to the said legal notice.
8. Further complainant submits that he was made to run from pillar to post to claim his legally entitled claim and made the complainant to undergo mental agony for the deficiency of service of Opposite parties. The complainant filed consumer complaint before Hon’ble District Consumer Redressal Forum at Kolar bearing CC No. 64/2017, the Hon’ble Forum has dismissed the complaint directing the complainant to file the complaint before appropriate jurisdiction by its order dated 30.11.2017. Therefore, the complainant left with no other alternatives approached this commission for the redressal of his grievances for the deficiency of service of Opposite Parties and unfair trade practice under Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence this complaint.
9. The counsel for the Opposite party No.2 filed detailed version and denied all the averments made by the complainant.
10. The counsel for the Opposite party No.1 filed detailed version and partially denied the averments made by the complainant. The counsel for Opposite party No.1 contended that the complainant himself is the insured under the said insurance policy and his deceased father was the nominee in the said insurance policy and also contended that a declaration of good heals was duly signed by the complainant himself. The complainant is not covered under the said policy and the question of settlement of claim on the death of father of the complainant does not arise at all. Hence the complaint against Opposite party No.1 may kindly be dismissed with costs.
11. The counsel for the complainant filed an affidavit in the form of their evidence in chief and produced documents. Counsel for the Opposite party No.1 and 2 examined and filed an affidavits in form of chief examination.
12. The counsel for the Opposite party No.1 and 2 have filed detailed written arguments.
13. On the basis of the pleading and documents, the points that would arise for consideration are as under:
i) Whether the Opposite parties practiced unfair trade practices?
ii) Whether the complainant proved the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
iii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought in the complaint?
iv) What order?
14. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 & 2 : In affirmative.
Point No.3 : Partly in affirmative.
Point No.4 : As per the final order for the following;
REASONS
POINT NO.1 & 2:-
15. To avoid the repetition of the facts we have discussed Point No.1 and 2 together. The complainant had reiterated the facts of the complaint through his affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief. On perusal of the documents produced by the complainant it appears that the father of the complainant had borrowed the said vehicle loan bearing No. TFE-4342900 for a sum of Rs.4,81,125/- from Opposite party No.2 for the purchase of the Tractor-MASSEY FERGUSON 5245 PD TR. The instalment payment was fixed for Rs.44,023/- for quarterly into 16 installments. It is further submitted that the father of the complainant also purchased Kotak Life Insurance plan from the Opposite party No.1 dated 03.05.2016 for the sum of Rs.4,75,000/- i.e loan amount under the Kotak Complete Cover Group Certificate of Insurance No.CC000014Q747900 Loan ID-TFE-4342900. As per the terms and conditions stipulated in the said plan in case of the death of the borrower of the loan the outstanding principle loan amount is to be paid directly by the Opposite party No.1 to Opposite party No.2.
16. This being the fact, the father of the complainant died on 02.03.2017 the Opposite party No.1 did not close the vehicle loan with Opposite party No.2 standing in the name of the deceased father of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the said policy. On perusal of the contention of the version filed by Opposite party No.1 counsel there is no dispute regarding the said insurance and also admitted the fact that the Kotak complete Cover Group Plan with Kotak Mahindra Bank agreed business division who is the policy holder in the present case. It is submitted that in the Group Insurance policies, as per the said policy contract, a Group of members as specified by the policy holder availing any loan for the policy holder for specific purposes as specified in the schedule of the policy contract shall be covered by the repaying Opposite party No.1 under the Group Insurance Policy for the period and amount as specified in the certificate of insurance issued to every such specified member.
17. On perusal of the terms and conditions of the said policy, under the head of benefits, it is stated that:
“Benefit terms and conditions In case of any difference between the cover amount and tenure as mentioned in the Cover Schedule and any other document arises the cover amount and the cover tenure as per the Cover Schedule will prevail.
Cover Amount at inception shall be the agreed cover amount subject to maximum of outstanding principal loan amount in borrower’s loan account and 10% of loan outstanding at per the cover schedule (loan repayment schedule). The cover shall be a reducing cover after moratorium period (0) months which will reduce as per the tenure mentioned in the CO1 Schedule above. The implicit interest rate for computing the reduction in cover shall be 10%. The claim amount subject to maximum loan outstanding and 10% of cover of member as on the date of death would be paid.
In case of any difference between the rate of interest as mentioned above and the rate of interest at which the loan has been availed by the Member, the rate of interest as agreed between the insurer and the Policy holder shall prevail.
If the loan amount and cover amount are the same, the claim amount is the outstanding principal loan amount and 10% of cover as at the date of death, assuming all EMI’s having been paid as per the schedule and amortization @10% p.a. The overdue EMIs and the balance outstanding, if any, due from you would be governed by the loan agreement between the Policy holder and you.”
18. By considering the contention of the version of the OP No.1 it is evident that the father of the complainant took the policy towards the said vehicle loan with Opposite party No.2. The Opposite party No.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant by merely giving the statement that the complainant never covered under the said policy. His name himself covered under the column of the name of the insured. Hence rejected his claim. The complainant was made to suffer mentally and financially.
19. The commission has observed that the IRDAI from time to time has issued guidelines especially on technical issues.
“In Bharti Axa Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd. V. Monu Yadav (P&H) 2014(56) RCR (Civil) 48, a Ld. Single Judge of this Court referred to the instructions dated 20.09.2011, issued by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) Emphasising that insurance companies should not repudiate genuine claims on technical grounds.”
20. In view of the above case law we hold that repudiation on technical issue is not maintainable, the claim of the complainant to Opposite party No.1 as genuine. As per the terms of the said policy the complainant is entitled for the amount of the said loan with Opposite party No.2. therefore we consider the Opposite party No.1 and 2 have followed unfair trade practice and made deficiency of service as enumerated under Section 2(g) and Section 2(r) of Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence we answer Point No.1 and 2 in affirmative.
POINT NO.3:
21. The complainant in his prayer made a prayer for the direction to pay a sum of Rs.5,72,299/- with regard to the said loan by Opposite party No.1 to Opposite party No.2. As per the discussion made above, the complainant is entitled for the claim under the said policy with Opposite party No.1 towards the loan account bearing No:TFE-4342900 after the death of his father.
22. Second prayer of the complainant is that the direction to Opposite party No.2 to issue no objection certificate for the aforesaid loan account bearing No:TFE-4342900. On perusal of the memo filed by the Opposite party No.2 dated 21.10.2020 specifically submitted that the complainant has settled the loan account with Opposite party No.2 and the Opposite party No.2 had issued no objection certificate dated 16.10.2020 the same has been received and acknowledged by the complainant on 20.10.2020 and also produced the Xerox copy of the duplicate no objection certificate. Therefore, the second prayer becomes infractuous.
23. On perusal of the said memo dated 21.10.2020 it is evident that the complainant had closed the said loan account with Opposite party No.2. Therefore, we direct the Opposite party No.1 to settle the claim amount of the complainant as on the date of the death of the father of the complainant with interest @ 9% per annum and also direct the Opposite party No.2 to refund the settled loan amount already paid by the complainant and after the death of the his father. In addition the complainant is entitled for the compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and financial hardship and Rs.10,000/- towards legal expenses. Hence, we answer Point No.3 partly in Affirmative.
24. POINT NO.4:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following;
-
The complaint is allowed in part.
The Opposite Party No.1 is directed to settle the outstanding loan payable by the deceased as on his date of death to Opposite party No.2 which was paid by the complainant later on by paying the same to Opposite party No.2 as per the terms and conditions of Kotak Complete Cover Group plan bearing No.CC000040-Q747900.
Further Opposite Party No.2 is directed to refund the entire amount paid by the complainant after the death of his father towards the said loan bearing No:TFE-4342900 to the complainant.
Further the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the damages of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.
The Opposite Party No.1 and 2 shall comply the order within 30 days. In case, if it fails to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.
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 27th day of January, 2023)
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (SHIVARAMA. K)
-
//ANNEXURE//
Witness examined for the complainant side:
- , the complainant has filed his affidavit.
Documents marked for the complainant side:
1: Copy of the loan sanction letter dt:04.06.2016.
2: Copy of the loan cum guarantee agreement dt:03.05.2016.
3: Copy of insurance certificate.
4: Copy of death certificate of Ramakrishnappa
5: Copy of the medical certificate of Ramakrishnappa.
6: Copy of Aadhar card of Ramakrishnappa.
7: Copy of Aadhar card of complainant.
8: Copy of Voter identity card of Ramakrishnappa.
9: Copy of Voter identity card of Complainant.
10: Copy of the Ration Card.
11: Copy of the family tree of the complainant.
12: Copy of the legal notice dt:30.08.2017.
13: Copy of the postal receipts.
14: Copy of the complaint/ application to post master.
15: Copy of the postal acknowledgement
16: Copy of the order passed in CC.No.64/2017.
Witness examined for the opposite party side:
RW1: Shakil Ahmed, Assistant Vice President-Legal of OP-No.1.
RW2: Renu.VM, Authorized signatory of OP-No.2.
Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:
- Nil -
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (SHIVARAMA. K)
-
