Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/311

Tarun Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Rajeev Kumar Adv.

26 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 311 dated 02.07.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 26.07.2022.

 

1. Tarun Kumar aged about 27 years son of Sh. Rajinder Kumar,
2. Saurav Kumar aged about 24 years son of Sh. Rajinder Kumar,
3. Raj Kumar son of Sh. Sant Lal (for self and being father, natural guardian and best friend of minor daughter Prachi)

All residents of House No.761, Sector 39, Urban Estate, Chandigarh Road, Focal Point, Ludhiana. ..…Complainants

•  

1. State Bank of India, having its Head Office at Fountain Chowk, Ludhiana, Civil Lines, Ludhiana through its R.B.O.
2. State Bank of India, Chaura Bazar, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.                                                                                                                                                                      …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainants            :         Sh. Rajiv Kaushal, Advocate.

For OPs                          :         Sh. Girish Anmol Sood, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainants is that Suman Rani had obtained a housing loan of Rs.26,60,000/- from OP1 and OP2. She was the mother of complainant No.1 and 2 and one Prachi who is stated to be a minor. Suman Rani was wife of complainant No.3. Housing loan of Rs.26,60,000/- was availed against mortgage of property. The loan was to be repaid in equal monthly installments.  

2.                It is further alleged that at the time of sanctioning the loan, the OPs obtained signatures on various security documents and also got the house measuring 125 Sq. yards built on Plot No.8-D on land bearing Khasra No.45//17/1, Khata No.1674/1819 as per jamabandi for the year 2006-2007 situated at village Sunet presently known as Bhai Randhir Singh Nagar, Ludhiana equitably mortgaged in favour of the OPs as a security for the loan. As per arrangement letter dated 27.10.2016, it was agreed that the house would be comprehensively insured  for the mortgaged value in the joint name of the bank and the borrower and the cost of the insurance premium  would be borne by the borrower. For this purpose, OP1 and OP2 had sanctioned an additional loan of Rs.2,40,000/- for payment of premium to SBI Life Insurance Co. for the insurance of the house. It is further alleged that at the time of disbursement of the loan to Suman Rani, OP1 and OP2 got her house insured by the SBI Life Insurance and paid the amount of insurance premium by debiting the loan account of late Suman Rani who continued to deposit the installments of loan with the OPs. Suman Rani died on 29.10.2018. After her death, the complainants informed the OPs regarding her death. The complainants further requested OP2 to lodge a claim of insurance of the loan amount of Suman Rani with SBI Life Insurance but OP2 kept on postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Ultimately after various visits and requests, the officials of OP2 informed the complainant that the house of Suman Rani was never got insured. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of OP2 as the insurance premium was duly debited from the loan account of Suman Rani but the insurance policy was never obtained. The complainants came to know about this fact when the officials of OPs started threatening the complainants to pay the outstanding amount of loan failing which they would take physical possession of the mortgaged property and sell the same under the provisions of SARFAESI Act. The complainants got served a legal notice dated 18.03.2019 but to no avail. In reply dated 02.04.2019, the OPs admitted that the insurance policy could not be got issued from SBI Life Insurance Co. Thereafter, the OPs sent another reply dated 12.04.2019 through Sh. Baljit Sharma, Advocate. Both the replies are contradictory to each other. Suman Rani had even raised an additional loan of Rs.2,40,000/- for payment of issuance of insurance policy. Thus, the OPs acted with utter negligence and carelessness in not getting the mortgaged house insured from SBI Life Insurance Co. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In the end, it has been requested that OP1 and OP2 be directed to make the payment of balance outstanding amount of loan availed by Suman Rani and further OP1 and OP2 be restrained or pressurizing the complainant to pay the outstanding amount and take the physical possession of the mortgaged property of Suman Rani. The OPs be further made to pay compensation and damages of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of deficiency of service and for

3.                The complaint has been resisted by OPs. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP1 and OP2, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable and is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties for which the complainants have not come to the court with clean hands in as much as complainant No.3 is also a co-borrower in the loan and the loan was applied for in the joint name of deceased Suman Rani and complainant No.3 Rajinder Kumar who is still alive and is liable to repay the loan. According to the OPs, additional insurance loan was sanctioned but the borrowers failed to submit the relevant documents and medical examination papers with SBI Life Insurance Co. for issuance of the policy. Therefore, the insurance proposal was rejected and whatever amount in the shape of first installment was deducted on 31.01.2017 towards premium of the policy  was credited back to the same account i.e. SBI Suraksha account of the borrowers on 23.02.2017 i.e. within a period of one month. The account statement is always accessible to the borrower and it was well within their knowledge that the amount was credited back to their account. Moreover, the insurance had been applied for by complainant No.3 and Late Suman Rani. The liability of complainant No.3 exists as he is jointly and severally liable to pay the amount in the capacity of borrower as well as legal heir of Late Suman Rani. Moreover, the borrowers had not been paid even a single amount in their SBI Suraksha account. It has further been alleged that it was in the knowledge of the complainants that after the insurance was rejected for want of relevant documents and medical examination, the amount was credited back into the insurance account of the borrowers and it was within their knowledge that the amount has been credited back in their account which was always accessible to the borrowers who kept mum for a year even after the refund of SBI Life Insurance premium. Thus, there has been no deficiency of service on the part of OP2. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

4.                In evidence, the complainant  No.1 Tarun Kumar has submitted his affidavit along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C8.

5.                On the other hand, Ms. Kiran Singh, manager of OPs tendered her affidavit as Ex. DA along with documents Ex. D1 to Ex. D3 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record carefully.

7.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainants has argued that it is a case of gross negligence, fraud and acute deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. In this regard, the counsel for the complainants has further argued that it was  duty of the OPs to get the house insured as per clause 10 of the arrangement letter Ex. C1 issued by the OPs. The counsel for the complainants has further contended that the OPs even sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,40,000/- to deceased Suman Rani to enable her to pay the premium of the insurance policy and the amount of premium was also deducted and paid to SBI Life Insurance Company. However, the policy was not obtained by the OPs nor any intimation was sent to the complainants or Suman Rani during her life time. Thus, the OPs are liable to be held responsible for not getting issue the policy despite having received the payment from Suman Rani which has resulted in a great loss to the complainants. The counsel for the complainants has further contended that had the house and Suman Rani been insured, upon the death of borrower Suman Rani, the insurance company would have been liable to pay the outstanding amount of the loan whereas in the absence of the insurance policy, the complainants are liable to pay the same being legal heirs of Suman Rani. Therefore, the OPs have caused great loss to the complainants due to negligence and deficiency of service on their part for which they are liable to be held responsible. The counsel for the complainants has further contended that the OPs would be made to pay the outstanding loan amount and be also restrained from recovering the same from the complainants by selling the mortgaged property or otherwise.

8.                On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs has argued that no case for deficiency of service is made out on the part of the OPs. The counsel for the OPs has further pointed out that as per the record, the amount of Rs.52,064/- deducted/debited in the account of Suman Rani on 31.01.2017 as premium of the insurance policy was credited back to the SBI Suraksha Account of the borrower on 23.02.2017. The counsel for the OPs has further contended that even after the amount of insurance premium was credited into account of complainant No.3 and Suman Rani, no steps were taken by the loanees to get the insurance policy. Therefore, the OPs cannot be blamed as the complainants themselves did not submit the documents and fulfill all the requirements for obtaining insurance policy. Therefore, the OPs cannot be blamed if the policy was not issued and it cannot be said to be a deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

9.                We have considered the above contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have gone though the record carefully.

10.              In this case, the grievance of the complainants is that the OPs did not get the house as well as borrower Suman Rani insured despite the facts that the OPs had sanctioned an advance loan of Rs.2,40,000/- to enable the borrowers to pay the premium of the proposed insurance policy from time to time. In this case, the case set up by the OPs in the written statement is that complainants No.3 and Late Suman Rani themselves did not submit the relevant documents and medical examination with SBI Life Insurance Company for issuance of the policy with the result that the insurance proposal was got rejected and whatever amount in the shape of first installment was deducted on 31.01.2017 towards the premium was credited back into the same account on 23.02.2017 within a period of one month. The borrowers remained in access of the statement of account and, therefore, it was within their knowledge that the amount of the insurance premium had been credited back into their account. All these facts have been pleaded by the OPs in para No.3 of written statement. The complainants have not filed any rejoinder or replication to contradict these facts. Even otherwise, it is evident from the account statement Ex. D1 that the premium amount of Rs.52,064/- debited into account of the borrowers on 31.01.2017 and was credited back into the account on 23.02.2017. It cannot be believed that the borrowers were not aware that the amount of the premium of the policy had been credited back into their account. No steps were taken by the borrowers i.e. Suman Rani and complainant No.3 to get the insurance cover by furnishing the requisite documents once the initial request for insurance was declined and the insurance premium was refunded on 23.02.2017.

11.              Strangely enough, the complainants have not impleaded SBI Life Insurance Company as a party in this case. The insurance policy was not granted by the said company for want of documents or medical examination papers of the borrowers. Had the insurance company been impleaded as party, it would have been given its reason for not issuing the policy and which could be probed as to whether the insurance policy was rightly or wrongly declined. Since the insurance company which is an independent corporate body, has not been impleaded in this case, in our considered view, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

12.              Thirdly, in this case, in the entire complaint, the complainants have made out a case  that the loan was availed by Suman Rani alone who died on 29.10.2018 whereas it is the definite case of the OPs that the loan was jointly obtained by Late Suman Rani and Rajinder Kumar complainant No.3. Even the arrangement letter Ex. C1 is in the joint names of Suman Rani and Rajinder Kumar and the signatures of Rajinder Kumar along with Suman Rani figures on all the pages of arrangement letter Ex. C1. Thus, the complainants have not come to this Commission with clean hands.

13.              During the course of arguments, it has been contended by the counsel for the complainants that the OPs have taken a self contradictory and mutually different stand in reply to the legal notice dated 18.03.2019 sent by the complainants through their counsel. It has been pointed out that in the legal notice Ex. C4 that it has simply been mentioned that  Suraksha account was debited  Rs.52,064/- on 27.01.2017 and the said amount was credited back into the Suraksha account on 23.02.2017. It is further mentioned in the reply Ex. C4 that after talking to SBI Life Insurance, the OPs were informed the said housing loan was not covered and the premium amount was refunded back. It has further been pointed out by the counsel for the OPs that in the reply Ex. C5 dated 12.04.2019, the OPs have come up with a plea that the borrowers did not cooperate with SBI Life Insurance Company and have not submitted medical examination and other required documents etc. As a result, the insurance company could not issue the insurance policy and returned the premium. According to the counsel for the complainants, from the  different stand has been taken by the OPs in reply Ex. C4 and Ex. C5, it is amply proved that the OPs are concocting a story to cover up their negligence. 

14.              We have considered the aforesaid contentions of the counsel for the complainants but have found the same to be meritless. There appears to be not inherent contradiction in the reply Ex. C4 and Ex. C5. The only apparent difference is that the reply Ex. C4 was sent by the branch manager while reply ex. C5 was sent through an advocate/standing counsel of the OPs. In both the documents, it is clearly mentioned that the policy was not issued by SBI Life Insurance Company. In the reply Ex. C5 it has been elaborated that since the borrowers did not submit the documents especially the medical examination record due to which the policy was not issued by the insurance company. Here for the sake of repetition, it needs to be reiterated that strangely enough the complainants have not impleaded SBI Life Insurance Company for which an adverse inference has to be drawn against the complainants. Had the insurance company been impleaded as party, it would have come forward and disclose the reason for non-issuance of the policy. Normally no insurance company refuses to issue a policy unless and until there are sound reasons for doing so, otherwise it would not like to lose business. It appears that the insurance company has not been impleaded purposely  for if it had been impleaded, it would have appeared and explained the reason for not issuing the policy which would have gone against the complainant.  

15.              In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the complainants have failed to make out a case of deficiency on the part of the OPs resolutely the complaint is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

16.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.07.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Tarun Kumar Vs State Bank of India                                        CC/19/311

Present:       Sh. Rajiv Kaushal, Advocate for complainants.

                   Sh. Girish Anmol Sood, Advocate for OPs.

                  

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed.  However, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:26.07.2022.

Gobind Ram.