This complaint Under Sub-section 8 of Section 38 of C.P. Act, 2019 was initially filed against the Opposite Party (O.P.) 1) The Branch Manager, SBSF Bank, Having office at 6E, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Dalhousie, Lalbazar, Stephne House, Ground & 1st Floor, Kolkata- 700 001, 2) The Branch Manager, SBSF Bank, Having office at City Building, 2nd Flor, Opp. Payel Cinema Hall, Sevoke Road, Siliguri, Pin- 734001, 3) Reliance Home Finance Limited, First Floor, Getanjali Complex, Sevok Road, Siliguri- 734001, 4) Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited, Having office at “H” Block, 1st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai, Maharastra- 400 710, 5) Reliance Nippon General Insurance, Having Office at Gitanjali Complex, 3rd Floor, Sevok Road, Siliguri, Pin- 734 001.
The case of the complainant as per his complaint is as follows-
The complainant stated in her plaint that she and her deceased husband, Late Dhrubajroti Ghosh, purchased a self-contained residential apartment being Flat No. 2G, Front Side, 4th Floor, Marigold Apartment situated within Rabi Auto Complex, 2nd Mile, Seboke Road, Siliguri appertaining to Plot No. 282 (R.S.), Khatian No.- 5419 R.S., J. L. No. 2 and for purchasing the said flat they availed a home loan facility amounting to Rs. 22, 85,000/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lakh Eighty Five Thousand) only on usual terms and conditions and in order to securitize such credit facilities, a mortgage was effectuated in respect of the said apartment and the terms and conditions was mentioned in the welcome letter dated 4th September which was issued by the O.P.s to the complainant . The complainant added in her plaint that in the sanction letter the complainant was described as the applicant and her deceased husband, Late Dhrubajyoti Ghosh, was included as a co-applicant in respect of the said loan facility.
The complainant also stated in her plaint that a, 2015 was also issued addressing the complainant and her deceased husband which also reflects the terms and conditions of the said home loan facility along with other details.
The complainant also stated in her plaint that at the time of filling up the application form for availing the said home loan facility, the agents and representatives of the O.P. No. 4 informed and advised the complainant and her husband (since deceased) to procure an insurance policy along with such loan facility so that in the event of any contingencies, the applicant and the co-applicant shall not be required to continue with the payment of the E.M.I.s and the said loan account shall be closed by virtue of such insurance policy and It duly represented that such was contingencies include death of the applicant or the co-applicant during subsistence of the insurance policy.
The complainant also stated in her plaint that in the said insurance policy and the terms and conditions it was mentioned that in the event of death of either the complainant being the applicant or her husband being the co-applicant, they shall not be required to make payment of equated monthly installment anymore and the applicant's amount of such loan facility shall be immediately adjusted resulting in closure of home loan account. The complaint also added that for issuance of such insurance policy, the O.P. No. 4 and their agents and representatives had accepted an additional sum of Rs. 12,425/- as one time premium for issuance of such insurance policy and such amount was also adjusted with the equated monthly installments.
The complainant also stated in her plaint that during subsistence of such insurance policy, on 23rd February, 2020, her husband being the co-applicant to the home loan facility passed away due to Broncho Pneumonia resulting in severe sepsis at the age of 44 years.
The complainant also stated in her plaint that since the said insurance policy issued under the Reliance Group Credit Assure Plan was valid from 3rd September, 2015 till 3rd September, 2020, the complainant on 2nd March, 2020 wrote a letter to the O.P No. 3 to avail the benefits of said policy along with a prayer for closure of the relevant home loan account and issuance of ‘no due certificate’ in favour of the complainant and further prayed for immediate release and return of the original Title Deed which was retained by the O.P.s in terms of the sanction letter issued while granting such credit facilities and the relevant documents testifying the death of her husband and /or co-applicant to the said home loan facility was attached with the said letter but the O.P.s preferred to remain silent on this issue.
The complainant also stated in her plaint that on 10th September, 2020 she also wrote a letter to the O.P. no. 3 requesting not to submit the post-dated cheques which were handed over to the O.Ps at the time of sanction and disbursement of the credit facilities and since, immediately upon death of any of the borrower i.e. either the applicant or the co-applicant, the obligation to repayment had ceased, there could not have been any occasion for the O.Ps to further deposit the post-dated cheques to secure further installment amounts but again the O.Ps did not make any response.
The complainant also added that after a long gap on 13.10.2020 the O.P. no. 3 requested the complainant through its representatives to get in touch with the O.P. nos. 1 and 2 being, Small Fin. Credit India Pvt. Ltd. (S.B.F.C.) which appeared from an e-mail dated 13th October, 2020 addressed to the complainant and the complainant was simultaneously receiving telephonic calls from persons claiming themselves to be the representatives of the O.P nos. 3 and 4 stating that the said home loan account shall be declared as Non-Performing Asset (N.P.A.) anytime until and unless the E.M.I.s are being paid regularly and the complainant failed to understand that why the O.Ps were taking such unfair and illegal steps while it was very clear and evident from the facility documents as well as the insurance policy that immediately upon death of her deceased husband, the complainant was not liable to pay any further equated monthly installments in terms thereof. The complainant also stated in her plaint that under specific threats and pressure she was compelled to pay the amounts of equated monthly installment to save and protect her property through cheque and such payment was made without prejudice and is liable to be returned by the opposite parties forthwith.
The complainant also added in her plaint that finding no other alternative, on 03/02/2021 she sent a legal notice to the O.P.s through her learned advocate but despite receiving of such notice, the O.Ps had failed and neglected to redress the grievances of the complainant.
The prayers of complainant are as follows: -
A) To pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the O.P.s from collecting the monthly EMIs from the complainant and/ or compelling the complainant to pay the monthly EMIs, depositing the posted cheques in their bank account or in alternative O.P.s are restrained from collecting monthly installment.
B) To pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the O.P.s from making the loan account of the complainant Non-Performing Asset (NPA).
C) To pass an ad-interim order of injunction in terms of A) and B) pending disposal of the application for temporary injunction for the ends of justice.
List of Documents filed by the complainant:
Sl. No. 1. – Application (Page No. 1 to Page No. 13).
Sl. No. 2. (Annexure- A) – Sanction Latter dated 31.08.2015 (Page No. 14 to Page No 17).
Sl. No. 3. (Annexure- B) – Welcome letter dated 4th September, 2015 and E.M.I. repayment schedule
(Page No. 18 to Page No. 20).
Sl No. 4. (Annexure- C) – Insurance Policy (Page No. 21).
Sl. No. 5. (Annexure- D) – Medical Certificate and Death Certificate (Page No. 22 to Page No. 23).
Sl. No 6. (Annexure- E) – Writing dated 02.03.2020 (Page No. 24).
Sl. No. 7. (Annexure- F) - E-mail communication (Page No. 25 to Page No. 26).
Sl. No. 8. (Annexure- G) – Advocate notice (Page No. 27 to Page No. 37).
The Opposite Party (O.P.) 1) The Branch Manager, SBSF Bank, Having office at 6E, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Dalhousie, Lalbazar, Stephne House, Ground & 1st Floor, Kolkata- 700 001, 2) The Branch Manager, SBSF Bank, Having office at City Building, 2nd Flor, Opp. Payel Cinema Hall, Sevoke Road, Siliguri, Pin- 734001, 3) Reliance Home Finance Limited, First Floor, Getanjali Complex, Sevok Road, Siliguri- 734001, 4) Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited, Having office at “H” Block, 1st Floor, Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Navi Mumbai, Maharastra- 400 710, 5) Reliance Nippon General Insurance, Having Office at Gitanjali Complex, 3rd Floor, Sevok Road, Siliguri, Pin- 734 001 did not contest the case. A notice was issued upon the O.P.s but after waiting of the statutory period the O.P. No. 3, 4 and 5 failed to appear and did not contest the case. It is from the record that on 24/03/2022 this Commission passed an ex-parte order against all the O.P.s. On dated 22/06/2022 Ld. Advocate of O.P. No.1 and 2 filed two separate petitions for vacating ex-parte order and also condone the delay for filing W.V. On 25/07/2022 the complainant filed W/O against the petitions filed by the O.P. No. 1 and 2. After that, several opportunities were given to the O.P.s for hearing of the petitions but none moved the petitions. Hence, the petitions submitted by the O.P. No. 1 and 2 considered and rejected and the case do run ex-parte against the O.P.s on Order No. 31, dated 16/01/2023.
Points for consideration
1) Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2) Whether the case is maintainable under the CP act 2019?
3) Whether this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case?
4) Whether there is any deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. as alleged by the complainant?
5) Is the complainant entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for? If so, what extent?
All the points are taken up together for consideration and decision.
Seen and perused the complaint petition filed by the complainant which is supported by the affidavit, documents filed by complainant. We are also heard argument in advance of the complainant in full length.
It is very much clear from the evidence by the complainant that the flat was duly insured under O. P. No. 4 Reliance Life Insurance Company Limited, and O.P. No. 5 Reliance Nippon General Insurance, the complainant, Swati Banerjee, W/O Late Dhrubajroti Ghosh, residing at H/483/3, Sevoke Road, Ward No. 14, Dist.- Jalpaiguri, Pin Code- 734001, so there is no doubt that this Commission has its jurisdiction to decide this case. Opposite Parties not appeared though several Opportunities were given.
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant and her husband being co-applicant took loan from O.P. No.3, Reliance Home Finance Limited, and as per instruction the loan amount of O.P. No.3 was insured with O.P. No. 5 with condition that in case of death of any of the co-applicant, the further loan amount shall not be recovered. The husband of the complainant died on 23/02/2020 and therefore as per terms of insurance agreement, the complainant is not to be made liable for any payment of any further amount.
From the evidence of the complainant it is very much clear that the O.P.s have knowledge of this incident that one of the co-applicant, Dhrubajroti Ghosh, was expired on 23/02/2020. But in spite of such terms and conditions, the O.P.s are putting pressure upon the complainant to pay further amount of the loan through the complainant is not liable and as per insurance policy Annexure C, this Commission has no doubt to hold that in the event of death of either the complainant being the applicant or her husband being the co-applicant, they shall not be required to make payment of equated monthly installment anymore and the amount of the applicant of such loan facility shall be immediately adjusted resulting in closure of home loan account. So, as per the above discussion, it is crystal clear that there was a deficiency in service made by the O.P.s.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the Consumer Case No. 25/2021 be and same is allowed against the O.P’s. O.P. No. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5 are jointly and severally liable.
The O.P’s are directed to close the home loan account standing in the name of the complainant returned the post dated cheques if any and other security related documents and the title deed of the property mortgaged.
The complainant to get Rs. 5,000 /- (Rupees Five Thousand) only for litigation, mental pain and agony and Rs. 5,000 /- (Rupees Five Thousand) only for Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission within 30 days (Thirty days) from the date of this order.
Let a copy of this judgment be given to the parties directly or through their representative Ld. Advocate for compliance free of cost.
