West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/98/2017

Sudip Dey, S/o Lt. Jaharlal Dey, - Complainant(s)

Versus

1. HDFC Bank, represented by Branch Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr. Acharya

31 Jul 2024

ORDER

Shri Sudip Majumder  President in Charge.

 The complainant/petitioner files this case Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case of the complainant/petitioner in brief is that one Sudip Dey, S/o Lt. Jaharlal Dey, permanent resident of Vill.- Paschim Birchandrapur, Dabuk, P.O.- Birchandrapur, P.S.- Mayureswar, District- Birbhum file this case. Jaharlal Dey father of the complainant took tractor Agriculture loan, being A/C No. 02174751 amount payable Rs. 4,44,000/- from OP No. 1. That Jaharlar Dey took the aforesaid loan on 17/09/2016 and his son was the Co-applicant.

The OP No. 1 took Rs. 31,346/ to open an insurance policy for credit protect premium in the name of Jaharlal Dey and the policy was purchased from the OP No. 2, who issued policy named HDFC Life Group credit protect policy No. CP000 and the OP No. 1 sent massage to inform about policy Jaharlar Dey on 22/09/2016.

 Jaharlar Dey, the insured died on 05/06/2017 and death certificate has been issued in the name of Jaharlal Dey on 09/06/2017. The complainant intimated the death certificate to OP No. 2 through OP No. 1 immediate after the death of the insured.

Thereafter the complainant submitted relevant documents in respect of death claim of the insured against the aforesaid policy before the OP No. 1 and the OP No. 1 instructed the complainant to deposit the documents before the Bolpur office of OP No. 1.

​Accordingly, the complainant submitted the relevant documents to get death claim of the insured Jaharlal Dey against the said policy before the Bolpur office of OP No. 1 and the Bolpur office issued the claim from.

Thereafter, the OP No. 1 sent a legal notice dated 21/09/2017 through their Advocate Anjanava Banerjee claiming some overdue portion against loan A/C- 82174751 to the complainant.

The complainant sent reply of the said notice dated 21/09/2017 sent by Anjanava Banerjee, Advocate through his Advocate Amiya Saha, District Judges Court, Suri, Birbhum.

Jaharlal Dey took loan from OP No. 1 and he also purchased a credit protect premium policy from OP No. 2 through OP No. 1 against his aforesaid loan account. That Jaharlal Dey died and as per terms and condition of policy in the event of the death of the insured loan amount will be paid from the insurance policy and the some assured will be paid to the beneficiary of the insured, but the OP No. 2 did not settle the claim of the complainant till date illegally and arbitrary.

Since the date of receipt of the Insurance Premium and insurance of policy the OP No. 2 did not deliver the policy to the insured during his life time, even after his death also and their such act is illegal. The OPs are liable to settle the death claim against the aforesaid insurance policy. The aforesaid act of the OPs are amounting to deficiency in service.

The OP did not settle the claim of the complainant in order to deprive him from his legitimate claim and as such the OP violated law of insurance and guideline framed by IRDA.

Hence, after finding no other alternative the complainant is compelled to file this case before this Forum/Commission for proper reliefs and he prayed the Commission:-

1. To pass order directing the OP to pay Rs. 4,44,000/ as death claim of the insured Jaharlal Dey.
2. To pass order directing the OP to pay interest @ 12% p.a. on Rs. 4,44,000/ since the date of claim preferred till  realization of the claim.
3. To pass order directing the OP to adjust the dues loan amount and issue “no dues certificate” in favour of the complainant.
4. To pass an order directing the OP to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for harassment.
5. Other relief/reliefs.

 

 

It appears from the case record that the OP members filed their written version and written notes on argument. The OP members denied all the complaint against them.

Complainant’s side submitted evidence in chief and written notes on argument. Some documents have also been filed by the complainant which were compared with the original ones. Thereafter, Ld. Advocates for the both parties made oral arguments in support of their case.

            Heard Ld. Advocates for the both parties.

            Considered.

            Perused all the documents.

Points for determination/Issues

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ of the C.P Act. ?
2. Whether this Commission has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Op?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

Point No. 1:

            That Jaharlar Dey took the aforesaid loan on 17/09/2016 and his son was the Co-applicant and as such the complainant is a consumer under the OP members and the OP members are the service providers of the complainant and thus it is clear that the complainant is a consumer as per Sec. 2(1)d(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Point No. 2:

            Pecuniary jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is Rs. 20,00,000/. Branch Office of both the OP members are situated in Birbhum District i.e. within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum/Commission as per Sec. 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, this Forum/Commission has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.

In this case, the cause of action arose from 05/06/2017 and the case has been filed on 24/11/2017 and as such it can be said that the complainant has filed this case within the statutory period of the C.P. Act, 1986 and as such the instant complaint is not barred by limitation U/S 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986.

 

Point No. 3:

            We find from the documentary evidence as available in the case record that the OP No 1/HDFC Bank through annexure A of the written statement dated 31/05/2018 has admitted that the OP Bank has accepted the application form or proposal form for tractor insurance cum credit protection. But, on the

contrary we are surprised enough to note that in the reply of the OP No 1 dated 24/01/2024 against the questionnaires of the complainant dated 04/09/2023 in respect of question No. 6, viz “Did you sent the proposal form for availing credit protection insurance policy by Jaharlal Dey, borrower to OP No. 2 …..?, It has been stated that “It is matter between borrower and Opposite Party No. 2, hence Opposite Party No. 2 restrain himself to make any comment.”

            On the other hand, we have found that the OP No. 1/HDFC Bank in the said written statement under paragraph No. 3 of parawise reply has admitted that Rs. 31,346/ was financed by the OP bank to the OP No. 2/HDFC Life Insurance Company Limited as the said credit protection insurance policy. Such statement has been reaffirmed in the Annexure B i.e. the statement of transactions for the date of 17/09/2016 with the particulars, “Due for credit protection premium paid to Bank.”

            Again, in course of argument it has been admitted by the Ld. Advocates of the OP Nos. 1 and 2 that Rs. 31,346/- has been received by the OP No. 2/HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd. as single premium though the OP No. 1/HDFC Bank Ltd.

            It is the only contention of the OP No. 2 that the complainant neither handed over any document, nor gave any policy number as well as bond, and as such, they are ignorant about the policy made by the OP No. 1 and OP No. 1 did not informed about such policy and the question of negligence and deficiency on the part of the OP No. 2 does not arise, as stated under Paragraph No. 7 of the written version of the OP No. 2.

            In this situation, we are of the observation that the OP No. 2/HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd. cannot sit with closed eyes after receiving that single premium of Rs. 31,346/. They are duty bound to issue necessary policy documents, i.e. policy No., bond etc. in the name of the insured immediately and do all the formalities to bring the said Jaharlal Dey under insurance coverage failing which it will be treated as an unjust enrichment.

            The OP No. 1/HDFC Bank Ltd. while incorporating the said finance of Rs. 31,346/- witch the loan amount of the borrower, is also duty bound to follow up whether his loanee has duly came under the said insurance coverage. The OP Bank cannot also sit with closed eyes here.

 

We have also found that the father of the complainant, Jaharlal Dey continued to pay the EMIs of the loan without any default till before his death. It shows his bonafideness in taking that Bank loan service from the part of the OP Bank. Thus, the non completion of documentation(s) by the OP No. 2/HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd. prior to death of the complainant’s father can in no way repudiate/nullify a genuine claim. Such insurance coverage are made for such unforeseen events and as the one time premium has been duly received by the OP No. 2/HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd., they cannot shake off their liability in this regard. If the father of the complainant were alive and paid the entire EMIs, there would be no need of such insurance coverage.

It is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the aforesaid act of the OP members are amounting to deficiency in service as per Sec. 2(1) (g) of C.P. Act, 1986.

Hence, from the above discussion it is proved that the complainant has able to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts.

Point No. 4:

As there is deficiency in service, the complainant is well entitled to get the relief/relieves from the instant case.

Hence, it is,

O R D E R E D,

                           that the instant C.C. Case No. 98/2017 be and same is allowed on contest with cost.           

Hence, for the interest of justice, we direct the OP No. 2/HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd. to bring the complainant’s father, Jaharlar Dey (Since deceased) under insurance coverage with effect from the date of receiving of the single premium i.e. 17/09/2016 after collecting the ‘Proposal Form’ dated 28/08/2016 from the OP No. 1/HDFC Bank Ltd. as has been submitted under Annexure A with the written statement dated 31/05/2018 by the said Bank. After completion of all the formalities for the said insurance coverage the OP No. 2 will repay the entire outstanding loan amount in the name of the said Jaharlal Dey (Since deceased) till the actual payment immediately to the OP No. 1/HDFC Bank Ltd.

            We also direct the OP No. 1/HDFC Bank Ltd. to issue ‘No objection certificate’ in respect of the concerned tractor (Vide loan A/C No. 82174751) after receiving the said outstanding loan mount from the OP No. 2/HDFC Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

           The OP Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs. 5000/- (Five thousand only) each to the complainant as litigation cost.

The entire decree will be complied by the OP members within 45 (Forty five) days from this date

of order, failing which entire amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization.

If the OP members fail to comply the decree, the complainant will be at liberty to put this order to

execution in accordance with law.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.