JUSTICE V.K. JAIN (ORAL)

The petitioner/complainant, along with her husband late Shri Mewa Singh took a housing loan from the respondent/its predecessor-in-interest. The case of the petitioner/complainant is that the respondent had undertaken to obtain a life insurance policy on the life of the borrowers and for this purpose, a cheque dated 20.8.2006 of Rs.18727/- was given by them to the respondent, which was encashed on 5.9.2016. The husband of the complainant/respondent having died, the complainant sought settlement of the claim against the insurance. The respondent, however, claimed that neither they had undertaken to get life of the borrowers insured nor they had received the cheque of Rs.18727/- towards insurance premium. They claimed that the aforesaid cheque was received by them towards part payment of the loan amount. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The complaint having been dismissed, she approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, she is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

2.      The only questions which  involved in this petition are – (1) whether the respondent had undertaken to obtain an insurance policy on the life of the borrowers (2) whether a cheque of Rs.18727/- received by them towards insurance premium for obtaining insurance cover on the life of the borrowers.

3.      The complainant did not disclose in the complaint the date on which the aforesaid cheque was delivered to the respondent. There is no letter from the borrowers forwarding the aforesaid cheque of Rs.18727/- to the respondent. The onus was upon the complainant to prove that the respondent had undertaken to get the life of the borrowers insured and had received the aforesaid cheuqe towards insurance premium. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to show any obligation on the part of the respondent to obtain an insurance cover on the life of the borrowers. The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant refers to clause 6.1(m) of the loan agreement. I have perused the aforesaid clause. It does not even remotely cast an obligation to the respondent to obtain insurance cover on the life of the borrowers. The reliance upon the aforesaid clause is wholly misplaced.

4.      There is no proof of the aforesaid cheque of Rs.18727/- having been given to the respondent towards the insurance premium. There is no acknowledgement from the respondent receiving the aforesaid cheque towards insurance premium. The cheque admittedly was enchased on 5.9.2006. The husband of the complainant expired more than two years thereafter on 20.1.2008. Had the aforesaid cheque been given towards insurance premium, the petitioner and her husband would not have sat silently after encashment  of the cheque and would have insisted upon delivery of the insurance policy to them. Their silence for more than two years after encashment of the cheque is a clear indicator that the cheque in question was not issued towards insurance premium and that is why they did not ask the respondent to provide the insurance policy to them.

5.      For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no ground to interfere with the concurrent view taken by the Fora below. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.