DATE OF FILING : 17.3.2017

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES  REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI

Dated this the  30th  day of   August,  2018

Present :

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT

          SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER

CC NO.51/2017

Between

Complainant       :    Vijayan K.P.,

Kallurumpil House,

Alppara P.O.,

Idukki – 685 606.

(By Adv:  Robin Manuel)

And

Opposite Party                                          :    The Manager,

Federal Bank Ltd., Karimpan,

Manippara P.O.,  

Idukki – 685 602. 

 

O R D E R

 

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

Case of the complainant is that,

 

On 29.1.2015, the complainant availed a loan of Rs.7,50,000/- from opposite party bank.  On 23.6.2016, he got a message from the opposite party bank stating that they withdrawn an amount of Rs.3438/- from the SB Account of the complainant and availed an insurance policy of Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company  in his name without his consent.  Before taking such a policy, the opposite party bank has not collected the details for insurance policy from the complainant.  On verifying the policy document, complainant found that the age and date of birth of the policy holder was incorrect.  The complainant further averred that in spite of all the personal details in his loan agreement, the opposite party bank given incorrect details to the insurance company.  Moreover, eventhough the bank withdrawn Rs.3438/- as insurance premium, this policy certificate shows only an amount of Rs.1189/- which is paid as insurance premium.  On getting the insurance policy certificate on 25.7.2016, the same day itself the complainant lodged a petition before the opposite party bank relating  to  the  mistaken  age  and  date  of  birth  which  is  entered in the 

(cont.....2)

-  2  -

insurance policy certificate.  Complainant further averred that the mistake in the policy certificate will badly affect his insurance coverage.  Hence the act of withdrawing the amount from the SB Account and invested the amount in an insurance company and withdrawing of a large amount beyond the policy premium which is stated in the policy certificate without the consent of the account holder, is a gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Against this, the complainant filed this petition seeking relief such as to direct the opposite party bank to repay Rs.3438/- with 12% interest and also direct them to pay Rs.10000/- as compensation for the mental agony caused to the complainant by the act of the opposite party.

 

Upon notice, opposite party entered appearance and filed detailed reply version.  In their version, opposite party contended that, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of party, the Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company.  Opposite party further contended that as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement, the life of the property owner and offered security shall be covered under an insurance policy for full market value against theft, riots, loss or damages by fire and all other risks including total damages, permanent disability or death of the borrower/insured.  As per the agreement accepted by the complainant, opposite party bank insured the life of the title holder and the security property with Bajaj Alliance Insruance Company, by a compact policy available during that period for a total premium of Rs.3438/-.  As per the terms of this policy, the offered security property was insured for a period from 23.6.2016 to 22.26.2021 by single premium of Rs.2254/- and the life of the title holder was covered by a premium of Rs.1184/- for the period from 23.6.2016 to 22.6.2021.  The complainant was absolutely free to produce any insurance policy having sufficient coverage and  did nothing  from his part.  If the complainant was not satisfied with the terms of the policy, or any representation, or correction, he could have sufficient opportunity to proceed  within  the stipulated period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy.  If he is not satisfied with the policy terms and conditions, he can revert back this policy within the said period.  As soon as the mistake of date of birth of the complainant was coming to the knowledge of the opposite party bank, the bank contacted the insurance company and the company reissued a fresh policy with corrected entries.  

(cont.....3)

-  3  -

But the complainant returned the policy to the company without accepting it.  The complainant was well convinced with the purpose for which the amount was transferred from his SB Account and all the papers on insurance certificate are shown and duly explained to him also.  Hence the contrary allegations are false and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as alleged.

 

Evidence adduced by the complainant by way of proof affidavit and documents.  Complainant was examined as PW1.  Exts.P1 to P4 marked.  Ext.P1 is the copy of loan pass book of the SB Account.  Ext.P2 is the copy of insurance certificate.  Ext.P3 is the copy of aadhar card.  Ext.P4 is the copy of petition dated 25.7.2016.

 

From the opposite side, Exts.R1 to R4 was marked.  Ext.R1 is the declaration.  Ext.R2 is the insurance policy copy that covers the property given as security.  Ext.R3 is the policy copy that covers the life of the borrower.  Ext.R4 is the copy of loan agreement.  No oral evidence adduced.

 

The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

The POINT :-  We have heard the counsels for both the side  in detail and gone through the evidence on record produced by both the parties in detail.

 

From the evidence on record, it is seen that the complainant availed loan from the opposite party bank on 29.1.2015 and the opposite party bank withdrawn an amount of Rs.3438/- from the SB Account of the complainant on 23.6.2016.  The version of the learned counsel appeared for the complainant in this mater is that, eventhough there is sufficient balance in the loan account, the opposite party bank withdrawn the amount from the SB Account of the complainant and that also without the consent or prior sanction of the complainant.  Then by using the amount, the bank insured the complainant with one Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company, also without the consent of the complainant.  All these things are done by the 

  (cont.....4)

-  4  -

bank arbitrary.  Moreover, the policy issued to the complainant is defective and the policy premium remitted by the bank was only Rs.1184/-, instead of Rs.3438/- which is withdrawn by the opposite party bank from his SB Account.  This act of the opposite party is clear case of deficiency in service and the bank is liable to compensate the complainant for the mental agony he suffered.

 

On the other hand the learned counsel for the opposite party vehemently argued that as per the terms of agreement accepted by the complainant, the opposite party bank insured the life of the title holder and the security property with Baja Alliance Insurance Company by a compact policy, for a total premium of Rs.3438/-.  Through this policy, the collateral security was insured for a period from 23.6.2016 to 22.6.2021 by a single premium of Rs.2,254/- and the life of the title holder of the property was covered for the above said period by a premium of Rs.1184/-.  If the complainant was not satisfied with the terms and conditions of the policy, he could have sufficient opportunity to proceed with its stipulated period.  Moreover, the said policy contract was entered between the complainant and insurance company, the company is to be impleaded as a necessary party for the disposal of this matter.

 

The counsel further argued that in deposition of PW1, he admitted that an amount of  Rs.3438/- was withdrawn from his account with his consent and he admitted the signature of Ext.R1 declaration.  From Ext.R1 itself, it is evident that, the opposite party bank withdrawn the said amount with full knowledge and consent of the complainant.  Moreover, in cross examination, the complainant admitted that he has no complaint about the transfer of amount from the SB Account.    The counsel further argued that since the insurance contract between the insurance company and the complainant and the insurance company is a necessary party in this matter.  Hence the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party.  The counsel further stated that as per the terms of policy in case of any disagreement, objection or any changes with respect to the information mentioned, the insured have the opportunity to revert back the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy.  As soon as the mistake in the date of birth of the complainant was came to the knowledge of the opposite party, contacted Bajaj Alliance company and the company 

(cont.....5)

-  5  -

rectified the mistake and reissued the fresh policy with correct date of birth and age of the complainant in his address by registered post.  In cross examination, the complainant admitted that he refused to collect the corrected policy and returned it to the sender.

 

The counsel further stated that the opposite party bank took two policies in the name of the complainant, one is to cover the damages to the landed property which is pledged as collateral security and another is to cover the life of the title holder.  It is a usual practice that the policy certificate which covers the collateral security will be with the possession of the bank authorities and the policy certificate which covers the life of the insured will be handed over to them.  In this matter, the personal damage coverage policy was issued in the name of the complainant and other policy certificate is with the opposite party bank.  Hence no question of any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is arises in this matter and the complainant approached this Forum after enjoying the benefits and coverage of the policy.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

 

We have gone through the entire material on evidence and given a thoughtful consideration.  In this matter, it is admitted that the complainant given the Ext.R1 consent letter to the opposite party bank, for allowing them to withdraw the amount from his SB Account and he admitted the signature in Ext.R1 while on cross examination.  It is also noted that the complainant received the insurance certificate from Bajaj Alliance Insurance company on 25.7.2016, and on notice, in the error of date of birth and age, he filed a petition to the opposite party bank on the same day itself.  It is evident from Ext.P4.  Immediately getting an information, the opposite party bank take up the matter to the insurance company and the insurance company reissued the corrected insurance certificate directing the complainant and the complainant wilfully evaded from its receipt and returned to the sender.  The justification given by the complainant in this regard is that, he is having no relation with the insurance company.  Exts.R2 and R3 are the corrected insurance certificate and on perusing this document, the Forum convinced that these certificates are corrected and reissued.  Eventhough it is reissued, it covers the period when it was issued first.  On evaluating the evidence on record, the Forum is of a considered 

(cont.....6)

-  6  -

view that, the act done by the opposite party bank is with the full knowledge and consent of the complainant and it is solely for the welfare of the complainant and the complainant is enjoying the benefits of the policy still.  If the complainant is having any objection in taking the policy with the Bajaj Alliance Insurance company, he can raise it immediately after getting the policy certificate and he could have sufficient opportunity to proceed with in the stipulated period as per the conditions of the policy.  Moreover, the complainant approached the Forum after enjoying the coverage of the policy for a period of nearly two years.

 

On the basis of the above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that the act done by the opposite party bank is only to safe guard the liability of the complainant and it is only for the betterment and benefit of the complainant and it cannot be considered as a deficiency in service on their part.

 

Hence the allegation levelled against the opposite party bank is having no legal footing and the complaint dismissed.  No  cost is ordered.

       

    Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of August, 2018

 

 

 

Sd/-

SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

          SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(cont.....6)

-  6  -

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Depositions :

On the side of the Complainant :

PW1               -    Vijayan K.P.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Nil.

Exhibits :

On the side of the Complainant :

Ext.P1            -  copy of loan pass book of the SB Account.  

Ext.P2         -  copy of insurance certificate.  

Ext.P3         -  copy of aadhaar card.  

Ext.P4         -  copy of petition dated 25.7.2016.

On the side of the Opposite Party :

Ext.R1            -  declaration.  

Ext.R2         - insurance policy copy that covers the property given 

     as security.  

Ext.R3         - policy copy that covers the life of the borrower.  

Ext.R4         -  copy of loan agreement. 

 

 

 

 

       Forwarded by Order,

 

 

 

             SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT