BEFORE THE
F.A.No.759
Between
Authorised Signatory, SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd.,
Central Processing Centre, Kapas Bhavan
Plot No.3A, Sector No.10, CBD Belapur
Navi Mumbai
1. Smt Bojja Chittemma W/o late Appa Rao
R/o Opp:BDPS Church, Hyderabad Road
Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District-175
2. Bojja Rajesh S/o late Appa Rao
Doctor, R/o Opp: BDPS Church,
3. Katta Rajyalakshmi W/o Nagabhupal
R/o D.No.6-983/2C, Opp: NSP Colony
Jaggaiahpet, Krishna District-175
4. Branch Manager,
State Bank of India
Agricultural Development Branch
Jaggaihpet, Krishna District-175
5. Authorized Officer under SARFAESI Act
State Bank of India, Agricultural
Development Branch, Jaggaihpet,
Krishna District-175
Counsel for the Appellants
Counsel for the Respondent
QUORUM: SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
TWO THOUSAND THIRTEEN
1. `4,50,000/- on 16.6.2003 from the respondents no.4 and 5. The loan was repayable in equated monthly instalments of`5,400/-.`12,00,000/-. The 4th respondent on 24.9.2010 released a sum of`4,80,000/- `2,00,000/- on 24.12.2010 and`2,50,000/- on 4.1.2011 in total`10,08,764/- out of sanctioned limit of`12,00,000/-. Before commencing repayment of 2nd loan amount, Appa Rao died on 28.3.2011.th`4,028/- on 6.6.2011 towards insurance premium even after intimation from the 2nd respondent about the death of Appa Rao. The 4th respondent also deducted a sum of`30,000/- on `20,000/- on 15.11.2011,Rs.10,000/- on 6.11.2011,Rs.6,000/- on 1.12.2011,Rs.6,000/- on 1.1.2012 and`6,000/- on 1.2.2012.2. `2,60,950/- and`11,09,845/-`5,58,764/- would be debited into the account.th
3. `38,579/- to the 2nd respondent on 26.11.2011 intimating him that the said claim was received from SBI life on policy No.9300002007 of late Sri Appa Rao Bojja. The 4th respondent 4. `78,764/- in favour of SBI life. The 4th respondent issued DD as requested by Appa Rao and it is his decision to join with SBI life. It is not related with the 4th respondent. SBI life is a separate wing. The 2nd respondent is not related to the loan transaction. The appellant sent the claim amount of`38,579/- to the 4th respondent and
5.
6. `12,05,464/-. The outstanding amount is`13,70,797/- The respondent is not entitled to the any damages, costs or any other claim.
7.
8. The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise that the appellant failed to appraise the insured the contents of the proposal and the insured did not understand the contents of the proposal as also that the insured had not suppressed any material fact at the time of submission of the proposal form.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
LV DYSFUNCTION
NHL STAGE IV
FOR CHEMOTHERAPY
14.
15.
16. `38,579/- and returning the same amount on 26.11.2011 subsequent to the death of the insured would show deficiency on the part of the appellant insurance company. `38,579/- ought to have been returned to the insured during his life time or any time thereafter and not till the respondents no.1 to 3 lodged claim. The amount of`38,579/- was returned to the respondents no.1 to 3 was returned to the respondents no.1 to 3 by the respondent no.4 informing them the claim was received from the appellant insurance company and the respondents no.1 to 3 were informed that the respondent tno.4 received communication, letter dated 21.10.2011 from the appellant insurance company.
17. `38,579/- was `50,000/- towards compensation on the premise that the appellant failed to This commission has come to the conclusion that
18. `50,000/- awarded by the District Forum has to be reduced As such this Commission is of `12,000/- would be reasonable if awarded under the head of compensation. `50,000/- awarded by the District Forum towards compensation is reduced to`12,000/-. `3,000/- as awarded by the District Forum is maintained.
19. `12,000/- and costs of`3,000/- to the respondents no.1 to 3/complainants no.1 to 3.
కె.ఎం.కె*
