Date of Filing:06/07/2021 Date of Order:14/06/2022 BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27. Dated:14th DAY OF JUNE 2022 PRESENT SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT SRI. Y.S. THAMMANNA, B.Sc, LL.B., MEMBER SMT.SHARAVATHI S.M, B.A, LL.B., MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.314/2021 COMPLAINANT : | | SMT. VANITHA S.RAO W/o Late Ravikumar M.K Aged about 32 years R/o No.285/1, 4th Main, 1st Stage, 1st Phase, Manjunath Nagar Bengaluru 560 010, Represented by her GPA Holer Mr. Krishnaji Rao.M S/o Jyotiba Rao Aged about 65 years Mobile No.7899901222. (Sri SN Sameer Adv. for Complainant) | |
Vs OPPOSITE PARTIES: | 1 | KOTAK MAHINDRA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LIMITED, Registered office at 2nd Floor, Plot NO.C-12, G Block, BKC Bandra(E), Mumbai 400 051 Represented by its Authorized person Also At: KOTAK MAHIDRA LIFE INSURANCE CO. LIMITED Residency Road, 303/304, Cears Place, 136, Bengaluru 25. | | | 2 | M/s KOTAK MAHINDRA PRICE, No.20, 3rd Floor, Uniworth Plaza, Sankey road, Palace Guttahalli, Bengaluru 560 020, 303/304, Cears Plaza, 136, Bengaluru – 25. Represented by its Authorized person. (OP-1: Exparte) (Sri Mohan Malge Adv. for OP-2) |
|
ORDER
SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS. PRESIDENT
1. This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties (herein referred to as OPs) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for the deficiency in service in not paying the full insured amount mentioned in the policy even after the death of the husband of the complainant and for payment of the balance of amount in respect of the policy issued by OPs in respect of the loan obtained by her husband from OP No.2 and for the direction to not seize the vehicle during the pendency of this complaint for non paying of the loan amount and for other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that; complainant is the wife of one Ravi kumar MK, Lhs borrowed loan of Rs.5,56,617/- from OP-2 to purchased Baleno delta car He purchase the same and got it registered in his name. OP-1 provided insurance for Rs.3,00,000/- by receiving one time premium of Rs.1,359/- from OP-1 on behalf of the borrower and the starting period of the policy was from 28.09.2017 and to end on 10.05.2022. Her husband unfortunately died on 14.09.2020 at Fortis Hospital Rajajinagar, Bangalore. At the time of his death the balance of loan amount was Rs.3,22,915/-. OP by issuing a notice dated 10.09.2020 recalled the loan amount and demanded to pay the entire amount. As her husband died on 14.09.2020 she made a claim with OP-1 the insurance company and the said insurance company instead of the claim of the sum assured of Rs.3,00,000/-, only paid Rs.1,43,312/- which OP-2 received from OP-1 towards the loan amount and claimed the balance amount for which she had to issue a legal notice. She is ready to pay the balance of amount provided OP-1 pays Rs.1,56,688/- being the balance amount out of the sum assured i.e Rs.3,00,000/- and hence there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed the commission to allow the complaint. This complaint is filed one Krishnoji Rao under the GPA executed by Smt. Vanitha S Rao the wife of deceased Ravikumar MK.
2. Upon service of notice OP-1 remained absent and hence placed exparte. OP-2 appeared before the commission through its advocate and filed version contending that, the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice against OP-2. This complaint is filed to harass OP-2. It is further contended that OP-2 is a bank keeping the money of the public in trust for the benefit of individuals. Person who avails the loan from the bank are duty bound to repay the same in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan contract. In view of the contractual relationship, complaint is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
3. Further the husband of the complainant Ravikumar along with the complainant borrowed Rs.5,56,617/- on 28.09.2017 to purchase a car agreeing to repay the said amount with agreed rate of interest, and also agreed to abide by the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. Complainant and her husband obtained insurance from OP-1 for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- and the risk was to commence from 27.09.2017, the cover reduces with every month. It was intimated by the complainant that Ravi kumar, her husband, died on 14.09.2020 and the 2nd OP presented the claim with 1st OP and on considering the said claim on the terms and conditions of the policy on a reducing basis, at Sl.No.36 of the schedule of payment, as on the date of death of Ravikumar the amount due to the bank was Rs.1,43,312/- from the 1st OP and the said amount was paid by OP-1. There was still a sum of Rs.1,92,926.75 due from the complainant. The same is to be paid by the complainant to clear the loan liability. Hence they had to issue demand notice demanding the complainant to pay the same and hence there is no deficiency in service on its part and hence prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint.
4. In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-
1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?
5. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT NO.1 & 2: IN THE NEGATIVE.
For the following:-
REASONS
POINT No.1:-
6. On perusing the complaint, version, documents, evidence filed by both the parties, it becomes clear that, the complainant along with her husband i.e. deceased Ravi Kumar borrowed loan from OP-2 and purchased Baleno Car. For which, he obtained insurance for Rs.3,00,000/-. It is not in dispute that, the said Ravi Kumar died on 14.09.2020. Ex.P3 is the copy of the insurance issued by OP-1 wherein, the type of cover is mentioned as “reducing cover”. They also forwarded the master policy to the complainant and the cover opted by the complainant was on reducing cover. Therefore, the claim amount payable was as per the cover schedule as mentioned in the certificate of insurance. It was also brought to their notice the benefit terms and conditions, In case of any difference between the cover amount and the tenure as mentioned in the cover schedule and any other documents arises, the cover amount and cover tenure as per the cover schedule shall prevail. Cover amount at inception shall be agreed cover amount subject to maximum of outstanding principal loan amount in borrowers loan account as per the cover schedule loan repayment schedule. The schedule is also produced, wherein as on the date of death of the complainant’s husband i.e. 14.09.2020 at Sl.No.36 the cover as on that date was Rs.1,43,312/-. Hence we are of the opinion that, in terms of the policy issued to the complainant i.e. reducing cover we found there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 in settling the claim to that extent and paying the same to OP-2. Hence we are of the opinion that, complainant failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of OPs. We answer POINT NO.1 IN THE NEGATIVE and in the result complainant is not entitle for any of the reliefs claimed in the complaint. Hence we answer POINT NO.2 ALSO IN THE NEGATIVE and pass the following:
ORDER
- The complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 14th day of June 2022)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
ANNEXURES
- Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:
CW-1 | Krishnaji Rao. M – GPA holder of the Complainant Smt. Vanitha Rao |
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:
Ex P1: Copy of the General Power of Attorney.
Ex P2: Copy of the Death certificate of Ravikumar MK.
Ex. P3: Copy of the Insurance policy
Ex P4: Copy of the RC
Ex P5: Copy of the legal notice 10.09.2020.
Ex P6: Copy of the reference notice 07.01.2021.
Ex P7: Copy of the letter dated 08.01.2021.
Ex P8: Copy of the agreement details.
Ex P9: Copy of the reply notice dt.23.01.2021.
Ex P10: Postal receipt.
Ex P11: Copy of the reply notice dt:15.02.2021.
Ex P12: Copy of the legal notice dt: 03.04.2021.
Ex P13: Postal receipt.
Ex P14: Copy of the reply notice dt:30.04.2021.
2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:
RW-1: Sri Srikanth Rao, Authorized officer of OP.
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
RAK*
