By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT
1.The complaint in short is as follows: -
The husband of the complainant availed a housing loan of Rs. 15,00,000/- on 10/04/2012 from the first opposite party. Thereafter on 27/11/2012, he had availed insurance policy of State bank of India General Insurance. As per the policy the coverage was provided for the husband in case of unfortunate event and also for the house of the complainant. As per the policy, the complainant and the husband of the complainant will be exonerated the loan liability in such an occasion. Believing the assurance of the Insurance Company and the opposite parties availed the insurance policy and the housing loan. During the period of availing housing loan, the husband of the complainant was working abroad at Saudi Arabia. While so the husband of the complainant met with an accident on 12/12/2017 at Jeddah and thereafter succumbed to the injuries in the accident. The death was reported to Consulate General of India at Jeddah and it was registered as 1071/2017. The husband of the complainant had remitted Rs. 16,00,000/-towards the loan amount of the 15,00,000/-. Now the opposite parties have informed the complainant that there is a balance amount of Rs. 8,44,000/-.
2. The complainant and her two children were living from the earnings of deceased Abdul Salam, the husband of the complainant, he also made payment towards the loan amount. The complainant is not able to pay the loan amount after the death of her husband. The default of loan payment is not a wilful one. Due to sad demise of her husband the entire family of the complainant including the parents of deceased Abdul Salam struggling for livelihood. The complainant has no any source of income. They are living depending on neighbours and they are at the edge of suicide. The submission of the complaint is that after the death of her husband the opposite parties are bound to waive the loan since there is insurance coverage. The complainant had submitted all the documents before the opposite parties immediately after the death of the husband of the complainant. The opposite parties had assured to the complainant about the waving of loan amount. But thereafter the opposite parties evaded the complainant stating one or other reasons.
3. Hence the prayer of the complainant is to waive the balance loan amount of Rs. 8,44,000/-and also to release the document with respect of 16 cents of land produced before the opposite parties at the time of availing loan and also to allow 1,00,000/- as compensation. The complainant also submitted that the opposite parties had not issued any document regarding the insurance coverage. The complainant realised the same while he obtained account statement from the opposite parties for the period 09/04/2012 to 25/01/2018.
4. On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.
5. The opposite parties denied entire averments and allegations in the complaint. The opposite parties admitted that the husband of the complainant Mr. Abdul Salam had availed housing loan from State bank of India Nilambur branch. But the opposite parties denied that the husband of the complainant had insured for the person and property in connection with said loan. The insurance policy availed by Mr. Abdul Salam is No.0000000000570463, which is pertaining for the fire and special perils. The opposite parties submitted that it will not cover the death of the loanee.
6. The policy is having the coverage for standard fire and special perils only. The
insurance coverage was insured with SBI General Insurance and the Insurance company had issued policy to the applicant in his address provided by him and the policy is still valid also. The opposite parties contented that policy does not have any coverage for death of the insured and so the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed. The opposite parties do not have anything to do with the insurance policy and its coverage. As such after the death of the loanee the legal heirs are bound to remit the remaining dues to the bank.
7. The opposite parties denied that, they had given assurance to the complainant that they will clear the balance due to the bank in the above loan account. The opposite parties submitted that, they are the employees of the bank and they do not have any authority to clear of/ right of the dues. The opposite parties submitted that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the second opposite party is nothing to do with the loan transaction and is an unnecessary party. The opposite parties submitted that they are not the persons to issue the insurance policy to the complainant and they are dealing with only banking transactions. The liability to cover the insure is with the insurance company only that too only in accordance with the policy conditions. Hence the submission of the opposite parties is that, the complainant is bound to remit the dues to the bank in the home loan. The submission of the opposite parties is that they are not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as claimed.
8. The complainant and opposite parties filed affidavit and documents. The documents
on the side of complainant marked as Ext.A1 to A5. The documents on the side of opposite parties marked as Ext.B1. Ext. A1 is photocopy of first page of pass book related to Account No.32277569654, Ext.A2 is photocopy of Account statement dated 25/01/2018, Ext. A3 is photocopy of account details from 01/04/2012 to 31/03/2013, Ext.A4 is photocopy of Death certificate of Mr. Abdul Salam Nambikunnan, Ext. A5 is photocopy of death certificate for Non-Saudis. Ext. B1 is policy details dated 29/11/2012 (4 pages).
9. Heard the complainant and opposite parties. Perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for consideration.
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the insurance coverage in case of death of Mr. Abdul Salam, the husband of the complainant.
- Relief and cost.
10. Points No.1 &2
The case of the complaint is that husband of the complainant availed 15,00,000/- rupees as housing loan from the opposite parties on 10/04/2012 and during that period, he was working abroad. Unfortunately, on 12/12/2017 the husband of the complainant met with an accident on at Jeddah and he succumbed to the injuries. The housing loan was insured with the SBI General insurance and there was insurance coverage for the housing loan, due to death of the husband of the complainant the housing loan has to be waived. The opposite parties had demanded the complainant to pay Rs. 8,44,000/-as due amount. But the opposite parties did not waive the due amount, but demanded
the complainant to remit the entire balance loan amount.
11. The opposite parties submitted that, they have no any connection with the insurance transaction, but submitted that the policy obtained by the complainant was for the coverage only for standard fire and special perils that policy does not provide any coverage for death of the husband of the complainant. The opposite parties produced Ext.B1 document related to the insurance coverage. The specific contention of the opposite parties is that the insurance policy does not cover the death of the insurer. That being the fact the complainant is not entitled for the insurance coverage. The complainant has not produced any document to rebut the contention of the opposite parties. So, Commission is not able to find that the complainant is entitled relief as prayed in the complainant. The insurance policy in this complaint is not covered the death of the policy holder. In the light of the above facts, we find the first point against the complainant and so the consideration of second point does not arise.
12. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint stands dismissed.
Dated this 5th day of July, 2022
