BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 37 of 2013
Smti. Meeta Choudhury, …………………………………………… Complainant.
-V/S-
1. HDFC Bank Ltd., Represented by and notice to be sent to:-
The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank,
Club Road, Silchar-788001 O.P No.1.
2. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Aquarius, Bhaskar Nagar,
R.G. Baaruah Road, Guwahati-791021 O.P No.2.
3. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Represented by and notice to be sent to:- O.P No.3.
a) Head Office,
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
1 Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070
b) Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
Guwahati Regional Office, 403, Orion Towers
Christan Basti, Guwahati.
c) Jain Udyog, Dealer of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.,
Kushal Complex, Sonai Road, Silchar-788006.
Present: - Sri Bishnu Debnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared: - Sri Debabrata Das, Advocate for the complainant.
Sri Sasanka Deb, Advocate for O.P No.1.
Abu Mansur Tayab Khan, Advocate for O.P No.2.
Sri Souman Choudhury, Advocate for the O.P. No.3 (C)
Date of Evidence………… 21-02-2014, 27-03-2014, 06-06-2014 & 07-04-2015
Date of written argument…… 20-06-2015, 27-07-2015 & 23-11-2015
Date of oral argument……… 25-05-2017 & 30-06-2017
Date of judgment…………… 25-07-2017
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Dednath,
- The husband of the complainant Late Amaresh Choudhury, purchased a Alto Car from Jain Udyog (O.P No.3.C) on Bank Finance. The HDFC Bank, Club Road, Silchar (O.P No.1) is the financer. At the time of purchase the Alto Car on Bank loaned the husband of the complainant also purchase Insurance Policy from HDFC ERGO General Insurance Co. Ltd. (O.P No.2) vide No. 2950200269229800000 to secure the repayment of loan and for coverage of life risk mention in the schedule of the policy including risk from critical illness and credit shield Insurance up to outstanding loan amount. The period of risk was covered by the Insurance Policy was from 31-05-2012 to 30-05-2017.
- The policy holder died during the coverage of period of insurance on 09-05-2013 at night due to intra-ventricular bleeding. Accordingly, claim submitted but the O.P No.2 repudiated the claim vide letter dated 27-08-2013 and the O.P No.1 threatened to recover the Maruti Alto Car for outstanding loan amount.
- Hence, the complainant being legal representative of her deceased husband brought this complaint with prayer for award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and directed to O.P to settle the claim. She also obtain an interim order of restraining the O.P No.1 to lift the vehicle from the possession of the complaint vide order dated 25-09-2013 of this case and the final order dated 14-03-2017 of MISC Case No. 5 of 2013.
- Notice issued to O.Ps. The O.P No.1, O.P No.2 and O.P No.3 (a, b & c) submitted their W/S. In the W/S the O.P No.1 stated inter alia that when the consumer died without clearing the loan, it is treated as defaulter, for which demanding balance unpaid loan amount etc. are not illegal and the O.P No.1 did not commit any deficiency in service. The O.P No.2 the insurer stated inter alia that the case is not falling under death on critical illness or any other schedule incidence mentioned in the insurance policy, for which the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any amount and for that reasons claim is repudiated. The O.P No.3 (a, b & c) in their W/S stated inter-alia that there is no cause of action against them rather the complainant filed a frivolous and vexatious complaint.
- During hearing the complainant adducing evidence and exhibited relevant documents including insurance policy vide Ext.(c,) Premium Certificate vide Ext.1(4) and loan agreement vide Ext.1(3) etc. The O.P NO.1 also examined Farid Ahmed Laskar, the legal Manager of HDFC Bank Ltd. exhibited loan agreement cum loan application vide Ext. II. The O.P No.2 also examined Sabir Ahmed Choudhury and exhibited proposal Form vide Ext. A, the policy schedule vide Ext. B etc. The O.P No.3(C) also examined Sushil Kumar Taparia, the Manager as D.W.3. The complainant also submitted written argument. The O.P No. 1 and the O.P No.2 also submitted written argument.
- We have also heard oral argument of the learned advocates of the parties and perused the evidence on record including the written argument.
- In this case, in view of insurance Policy vide Ext.1(I) the risk coverage are as below:-
- Critical illness.
- Accidental death
- Permanent total disability/Permanent partial disability
- Dependent child education
- Accidental hospitalization
- Loss of job
- Credit shield insurance
- Householders coverage
- Garage cash
- The sum assured for each head above are also specified and accordingly, one time premium paid of Rs.1,434/- vide Ext. 1(4). The complainant by adducing evidence tried to establish the fact that during the coverage of the period of risk as per the above Insurance Policy, the insured died due to intra-ventricular bleed on 06-05-2013. In support of the death no medical papers exhibited. Anyhow, the contesting O.Ps did not challenge the cause of death but the plea of the O.Ps is that the claimant is not entitle benefit of compensation on the ground of critical illness. In that aspect they explained the terms and condition of the Insurance Policy. In the schedule mentioned in the Policy does not cover the cause of death of the insured but the complainant want to establish that the death was caused due to critical illness. The O.Ps stated that to get benefit under head of critical illness certain condition i.e, at least 30 days required to survive by the insured from the date of diagnosed of the critical illness. But in the instant case, no such situation arose.
- We have gone through the terms and condition, proposal form etc. and satisfied that the condition for getting benefit under head critical illness are not fulfilled. So the claimant is not entitled benefit for compensation and claim on the ground of death of insured on critical illness.
- However, it is a fact that the insured died on above mention date without clearing the loan amount. Hence, as per the insurance Policy, the risk for credit shield Insurance upto outstanding loan is liable to pay by the O.P No.2 to the O.P No.1 directly, without disturbing the claimant. So, the interim order passed in MISC Case No.5/2013 is made absolute.
- The O.P No.1 may approach this Forum after waiting the stipulated period for realization of outstanding loan amount from the O.P No.2. In that situation a simple petition is required to submit before this Forum for execution of the order.
- With the above order, the O.P No.2 is directed to clear up the outstanding loan amount of car of the insurer late Amaresh Choudhury within 45 days from today. In default, the balance outstanding loan amount will fetch interest @ 10% P.A
- Accordingly, the case is disposed of on contest without any proceeding cost. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties.
Given under the hand of the President and Members of this District Forum and seal of the Office of the District Forum on this the 25th day of July, 2017.
