Complainant by Adv. Shekhaar Shetty present.
Opponent No.1,2 & 3 by representative Adv.Swati Chinchkar present.
Opponent No. 4 & 5 by Adv. Smt. Anita Marathe present.
The Complainant had taken a home loan of Rs. 3,66,165/- from the Centurian Bank of Punjab(Now taken over by H.DF.C),Kandiwali in February 2007. The complainant was directed to pay premium of Rs. 88,889/- to insurance company and remaining amount was paid in saving account.
The complainant sated that; he did not fill up any application form for policy and also did not sign any document. He further stated that he neither received any information regarding the policy. After the correspondence he received copy of proposal for policy and relevant documents on 25.03.2009. He noticed that there was signature of complainant singed by unknown person.
The complainant prayed for refund of said amount of policy with interest in addition to the compensation for mental agony and cost of complaint.
The forum admitted the complaint on 06.04.2011. The opposite parties 1 to 3 were duly served, however they failed to file written version. Consequently matter proceed ex-parte against the insurance company by order dated 14.07.2011.
The opposite party 4 & 5 filedwritten statement on 07.10.2011 and denied each and every allegation made in the complaint. The complainant had applied for the loan from the Centurian Bank of Punjab (Now taken over by H.D.F.C),Kandivali.
The complainant had also applied for grant of home loan facility from the opponent no. 4 & 5 i.e. loan no. 1 of Rs.3,66,165/- and loan no. 2 of Rs. 13,22,124/- which was sanctioned by the bank as per the terms mentioned in the sanction letter.It is alleged by the opponent that the complainant has not raised any objection about the insurance that was intended to be taken from Aviva life insurance.
The opposite party no. 4 & 5 stated that, the complainant sought disbursement of the first loan of Rs. 3,66,165/- with direction to pay an amount of Rs. 88,889/- and accordingly an amount of Rs. 88,889/- was remitted to the insurance company and was disbursed to complainant. The top up loan of Rs. 13,22,724/- was disbursed on 19.04.2007/-
The opponent No. 4 & 5 stated thatNo. 1 to 3 issued pension plus policy to the complainant which is usually taken for the purpose of post retirement life. It is contended that, the liability can not be fastened on opposite party no. 4 & 5 just because there are two sets of signature on record one on home loan related documents and other pertaining to pension plus insurance policy.
The opponent no. 4 & 5 denied the allegations regarding imposing the pre-condition that, the complainant should take insurance only from opposite party no. 1, the complainant never lodge a protest regarding the insurance cover and was failed to avail any insurance facility from any of the insurance company.
The opponent no. 4 & 5 stated that, there is no deficiency on their part as falsely alleged and there is no question of them being hand in glove with insurance company. The bank manager has not extended his service to the complainant by his personal capacity by receiving consideration. It is prayed that the complaint kindly be dismissed against the opponent no. 4 & 5.
The complainant filed on record the letters issued to the insurance company during 16.04.2009 to18.05.2009, letter issued by insurance company dated 29.05.2009, copy of insurance policy, notice by Advocate dated 16.04.2010 to insurance company and reply dated 08.07.2010.
We have perused all the documents produced on record. Heard both sides. The matter was kept for argument on 01/08/2016. The learned Advocate for opponent insurance company Smt. Swati Chinchkar appeared though matter was ex-parte against Insurance Company. She filed Vakalatnama on 02/09/2016. She was given liberty to argue on behalf of opponent 1 to 3.
The documentshow that Home loan was sanctioned in Feb 2007 and premium amount was paid in March 2007. The complainant admit that he has taken policy on the ground that opponent bank sanctioned loan subject to taking a policy of opponent 1 to 3.
The learned Advocate for bank submitted that complainant was free to avail the insurance policy from any of Insurance company. It is argued that complainant did not object regarding the insurance cover proposed to be taken by him.
We are of the view that complainant is not justified to allege that he was forced to take the said insurance policy and concerned bank made a pre-condition that he should take insurance policy from Aviva Life Insurance Policy. The reason is that complainant was at liberty not to agree for the same. Hence we do not find any fault regarding sanction letter and pre-condition as alleged by complainant.
We have carefully perused documents i.e. Insurance policy which impose an obligation on complainant to pay premium of 88,889/- for five years. The complainant solemnly affirmed that proposal is not made by him. He stated that policy terms were not explained to him by company. The Insurance company failed to file written version of evidence. The complainant has gone unchallenged.
The opponent insurance company is liable to refund the amount of premium of Rs.88,889/- to complainant. The insurance company has not investigated regarding the forged signature and duplicate photograph affixed on the proposal form, allegedly filled in the name of complainant.
The amount payable by Insurance Company shall carry interest at 9% p.a. till payment. The opponent shall also be liable to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 10,000/- to complainant.
In the result we pass following order.
ORDER
1. RBT/CC/144/2011 is partly allowed.
2. AVIVA Life Insurance Co. India Ltd. Is directed to Rs.88,889/- to
complainant with interest at 9% p.a. from 15/03/2007 till realization.
Rs.10,000/- to complainant.
4. Copy of this order be sent to the both parties.
