IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/27/2021.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
07.07.21 09.08.21 25.06.24
Complainant:Moumita Saha
W/O Late Pritam Kumar Saha,
19/N/A.C Road, PO-Khagra, PS-Berhampore,
Pin-742103
-Vs-
Opposite Party:1. Branch Manager, State Bank Of India
RACC RNBD Berhampore,15 Square East Road,
PO-Berhampore, Pin-742101
2. Branch Manager, SBI Life
Berhampore Branch, 8/8, 1st Floor,
K.K. Banerjee Road, Pin-742101
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Pranab Kr. Das
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1 : Satinath Chandra
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 : Monalisa Dutta.
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.
Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member.
FINAL ORDER
Sri.ajay kumar das, presiding member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Moumita Saha (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Branch Manager, State Bank of India, RACC RNBD Berhampore & Anr. (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-
The Complainant is a consumer under the OPs. In order to purchase a flat the Complainant and her husband applied for the loan before the OP No.1. The total price of the flat was 24,25,000/- only. The Complainant and her husband paid a sum of Rs. 5,39,000/- only as advance consideration. The Bank i.e. OP No.1 sanctioned 18,86,000/- only. The OP No.1 insured the life of the borrowers to secure the loan through SBI Life Insurance and the premium of Rs. 36,800/- has been paid by the OP No.1 and the amount of the said premium of the insurance has treated as loan amount which was sanctioned by the Bank on 30.09.20.
On 15.10.20 the Complainant and her husband purchased the flat bearing No. V-E on the fifth floor measuring 961 Sq. Ft of the G+5 storied building named ‘’Jorapukur Residency’’ situated on the R.S. Plot No. 32/291 and L.R. Plot No. 108 of Khaitan No. L.R. 3842,3843, 3844, 3845 under Mouza Khagra Joy Chandra within Berhampore Municipality under Berhampore Police Station Dist. Murshidabad.
On 06.10.20 the OP No.1 debited Rs. 13,566/- from the loan Account of the Complainant and her husband and credited the same to the SBI Life i.e. the OP No.2.
Suddenly the husband of the Complainant Pritam Kumar saha died on 12.12.20. Thereafter she informed the OP No.1 the fact of death of her husband. On 26.12.20 she received letters from the OPs that due to technical fault the Complainant and her husband was not insured. Though the notices were dated 24.11.20 and 28.11.20 but the Complainant received the said notices on 26.12.20. The Complainant got surprised. The amount against insurance was debited on 06.10.20 but any such problem was not informed to the Complainant and her husband and no attempt was taken by the OPs to rectify the technical problems. After few days the Complainant came to know from the statement of account that OP No.2 has credited the said insurance premium to the said loan account of the Complainant. The Complainant insured their life only to secure their loan but due to latches on the part of the OPs the Complainant and her husbands life were not insured.
It is clear deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. To avoid the complicacy the Complainant is continuing to pay the loan installment amounts i.e. sum of Rs. 15,043/- per month only.
Finding no other alternatives the Complainant filed this instant case praying for directing the OPs to pay the sum of Rs. 19,22,800/- together with loan interest calculating by Bank as per terms of the Loan Account No. 00000039697652579 plus Rs. 1,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment and also to refund the total amount of installments which the Complainant has paid to the OP No.1.
OP No.1 iscontesting the case by filing written version contesting inter alia that the case is not maintainable and the case is barred by law of limitation.
OP No. 1 submit that the Insurance of loan is an optional matter to the borrowers, as the Complainant selected the option of insurance to cover the loan so as per the instruction of the borrower this OP bank sanctioned a sum of Rs. 36,800/- as the total premium of the insurance in addition to the loan of Rs. 18,86,000/-.
The OP bank also transferred a sum of Rs. 13,566/- to the Insurance company as per norms as part of the premium.
Insurance Company intimated the fact to the Complainant that the insurance of the borrowers has not been accepted, and copy of the letter dated 24.11.20 has been forwarded to the bank. Likewise by another letter dated 28.11.20 the insurance company intimated the said fact to the Bank and forwarded a copy of the letter to the Complainant.
That so far as non acceptance of insurance policy is concerned this OP party(Bank) has no role in respect of that allegation.
The OP No.1 filed additional written version on 15.04.24 stating that on 06.10.20 the Complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 13,566/- as premium of insurance of her part, however she knew well that the total premium was Rs. 36,800/- as the premium of insurance for the part of her husband was fixed to Rs. 23,234/- which has not been paid by him.
The OP Bank has sanction loan of Rs. 36,800/- on the head of insurance premium and Rs. 18,86,000/- on the head of Home Loan. The Complainant and her husband by issuing a letter claimed for disbursement of the fund of Home Loan and on the basis of that letter (Annexure-D) the OP disbursed the fund of Rs. 18,86,000/-. Similarly, the Complainant has given a mandate to disburse insurance premium, which is marked as (Annexure-E) so, the bank disbursed Rs. 13,566/- i.e. the premium of insurance of the part of Complainant. After sanction of the loan the husband of the Complainant had not complied with the formalities which were required to insure his life. So, he has not given debit mandate which was required to disburse the premium of Rs. 23,234/-. The Complainant knows well that the life of his husband was not insured as he never signed and submitted required documents for insurance and only Rs. 13,566/- was disbursed instead of Rs. 36,800/- which was reflected in the Statement of Account.
The OP Bank cannot prepare any insurance proposal without the consent of the borrower and so the bank had no scope to disburse the premium amount of the husband of the Complainant as he has not signed in the debit mandate form.
OP No.2 SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed written version contending inter alia that the case is not maintainable particularly when the contract of insurance in question is not concluded.
OP No.2 has specifically stated in para 4 of the written version that SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. has a Group Insurance Scheme, for the loan account holders of State Bank of India, where under the Loan borrowers are offered insurance cover subject to the terms and conditions incorporated in the Master Policy which is issued in favour of State Bank of India. A Master policy bearing No. 700000018311 as an evidence of the insurance contract was issued to State Bank of India. A copy of the Master Policy is appended as Annexure A. The terms and conditions of the master policy are binding on all the insured members.
On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
1. Isthe Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1,2 & 3
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
From the sanction letter dated 30.09.20 it is found that medium term loan of Rs. 19,22,800/- was sanctioned in favour of the Complainant Mrs. Moumita Saha and her husband Mr. Pritam Kr. Saha.
From the arrangement letter we find that the amount of home loan was Rs. 18,86,000/- and funding of home loan insurance cover was Rs. 36,800/- totaling Rs. 19,22,800/-. This Arrangement letter was signed by the Complainant Moumita Saha and her husband Pritam Kr. Saha and the Bank Manager concerned.
The facts mentioned above is admitted by the Ld. Advocates for the Complainant and the Ld. Advocates for the OPs.
Ld. Adv. for the OP No.2 submits that the contract of insurance in question is not concluded, and as such OP No.2 is not bound to compensate the Complainant against the loan given to her and her deceased husband by the OP No. 1, Bank.
After hearing the Ld. Advocates for the parties and considering the materials on record including the facts and circumstances of the case we find that the contract of insurance in question is not concluded irrespective of the fault/deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. So, the Complainant is bound to pay the premium of the loan amount.
Now the question arises whether there is any fault/deficiency of service on the part of the OPs to complete the contract of insurance in question.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submitted at the time of argument that the OP 1, Bank has stated in para 7 of the written version that insurance of loan is an optional matter to the borrowers as the Complainant selected the option of insurance to cover the loan so as per the instruction of the borrower this OP Bank sanctioned a sum of Rs. 36,800/- as the total premium of the insurance in addition to the loan of Rs. 18,86,000/-. He further submits that the arrangement letter was executed by the Complainant Moumita Saha and her husband Pritam Kr. Saha and the Bank Manager concerned. As per arrangement letter the loan amount amounting to Rs. 18,86,000/-was disbursed.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant further submitted at the time of argument that the OP No.1, Bank has stated in their written argument that a insurance premium of Rs. 13,556/- was fixed for Moumita Saha for a sum assured of Rs. 9,56,566/- and similarly a premium of Rs. 23,234/- was fixed for Pritam Kr. Saha for a sum assured of Rs. 9,66,234/-. The said scheme [Benefit Illustration for SBI Life] [Annexure-A] was e-signed by Moumita Saha, the Complainant but her husband has not e-signed upon another similar document.
In this respect Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OP No.1, Bank is the Master Policy Holder. It is the duty and responsibility of the OP No.1, Bank to prepare the necessary documents and it is the common practice that the borrowers are to prepare and execute all the necessary documents under the instruction and guidance of the Bank concerned. It is the admitted position that the Insurance Scheme was e-signed by Moumita Saha but the Bank authority failed to explain why the insurance scheme was not e-signed by her husband Pritam Kr. Saha. There is no evidence to the effect that Pritam Kr. Saha refused to e-sign the Insurance Scheme. The OP No.1, Bank being the Master Insurance Policy holder cannot escape its liability. Here lies the deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1, Bank.
OP No.2 has specifically stated in para 4 of the written version that SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. has a Group Insurance Scheme, for the loan account holders of State Bank of India, where under the Loan borrowers are offered insurance cover subject to the terms and conditions incorporated in the Master Policy which is issued in favour of State Bank of India. A Master policy bearing No. 700000018311 as an evidence of the insurance contract was issued to State Bank of India. A copy of the Master Policy is appended as Annexure A. The terms and conditions of the master policy are binding on all the insured members.
We peruse the copy of Master policy bearing No. 700000018311 as an evidence of the insurance contract which was issued to State Bank of India. In the policy preamble we find that it is mentioned, ‘’It shall be the responsibility of the Master Policy Holder to inform the terms and conditions of the Master Policy to its members from time to time’’. Here we find the State Bank of India is the Master Policy Holder. So, it is the duty of the State Bank of India to inform the terms and conditions of the Master Policy to its members from time to time. The facts and circumstances suggest that the copy of the Master Policy was given to the Master Policy Holder State Bank of India. There is no whisper to the effect that the terms and conditions of the Master Policy was informed to the Complainant and her deceased husband.
From the sanction letter dated 30.09.20 it is found that medium term loan of Rs. 19,22,800/- was sanctioned in favour of the Complainant Mrs. Moumita Saha and her husband Mr. Pritam Kr. Saha.
From the arrangement letter we find that the amount of home loan was Rs. 18,86,000/- and funding of home loan insurance cover was Rs. 36,800/- totaling Rs. 19,22,800/-. This Arrangement letter was signed by the Complainant Moumita Saha and her husband Pritam Kr. Saha and the Bank Manager concerned.
In para 16 of the arrangement letter signed by the Complainant Moumita Saha and her deceased husband Pritam Kr. Saha and the Bank Manager concerned we find the following:
‘’ 16. Disbursement :
The loan will be disbursed only on the following conditions:
a) Title of the property proposed to be mortgaged is clear, absolute, unencumbered and marketable to the satisfaction of the Bank’s Solicitor/Advocate and a valid mortgage (equitable or registered if equitable mortgage is not possible) has been created in favour of the Bank.
b) All the security documents prescribed below have been executed by you/co-applicant (s)/ gurantor (s)-
i) Loan Agreement
ii) Affidavit
iii)
iv)
c) The loan will be disbursed as under : (applicable where loans for construction is desired or purchase is through payment in installments)
Construction Stages | Description | Amount (Rs.) |
| SINGLE DISBURSEMENT TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE SELLER | 18,86,00.00 |
| SBI Life Premia | 36,800.00 |
| Total (Loan amount + SBI Life Premia) | 19,22,800.00 |
d) You will have to bring in proportionate margin at each stage of disbursement. Disbursement will be made in favour of the seller/builder from whom you are buying the property funded through this loan/in favour of the Financial Institution from where your loan is being taken over.’’
In view of the matters discussed above it is clear before us that both the Complainant and her husband were ready and willing to execute any kind of document to complete the contract of insurance. In the instant case, it is alleged by the Ld. Adv. for the OP No.1, Bank that the insurance proposal scheme was e-signed by Moumita Saha, the Complainant but her husband had not e-signed upon another similar document. In this respect there is no evidence to this effect that the deceased husband of the Complainant was asked to e-sign the insurance proposal scheme. There is also no evidence to the effect that the deceased husband of the Complainant Moumita Saha refused to e-sign the insurance proposal scheme.
It would not be out of place to mention here that in case of any loan all the relevant documents are executed by the borrower(s) under the instructions and guidance of the bank officer concerned whether the borrower(s) are educated or uneducated persons. This Commission is required to consider such facts and circumstances of the case which a prudent man would consider under the similar circumstances.
Ld. Advocate for the OP 1, Bank has stated in para 10 of his written statement that so far non acceptance of the insurance policy is concerned this OP (Bank) has no role in respect of that allegation. But he has stated in his additional written version at page 2-3 to the effect that ‘’the Complainant had given a mandate to disburse insurance premium, which is marked as (Annexure-E) so, the bank disbursed Rs. 13,566/- i.e. the premium of insurance of the part of Complainant. After sanction of the loan the husband of the Complainant had not complied the formalities which were required to insure his life. So, he has not given debit mandate which was required to disburse the premium of Rs. 23,234/-. The Complainant knows well that the life of his husband was not insured as he never signed and submitted required documents for insurance and only Rs. 13,566/- was disbursed instead of Rs. 36,800/- which was reflected in the Statement of Account’’
Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1 has stated in his written argument at page 3 to the effect, ‘’that on the basis of ‘’Annexure-A’’ and ‘’Annexure-E’’ this OP paid premium of Rs. 13,566/- on 06.10.20 for the part of the premium of Moumita Saha to the Insurance Company but the OP No.1 was unable to remit premium for the part of the husband of the Complainant as he had not signed and submitted relevant documents such as ‘’proposal Scheme [Benefit Illustration for SBI Life] and ‘’Electronic Membership Application’’.’’
Here we find that the statement made by the OP Bank in the written version in one hand and in the additional written version and written argument on the other are contradictory to each other. It appears to us that the statement made in the additional written statement and written argument regarding not e-signing of the insurance scheme was subsequently created and this fact was unknown to the OP No.1 Bank at the time of filing written version. Every prudent man will say that if the insurance scheme was not e-signed by Pritam Kr. Saha, that fact would be mentioned at the time of filing written version. So the fact of not e-signing the insurance scheme by Pritam Kr. Saha is not believable as alleged by the OP No.1, Bank.
Ld. Advocate for the OP No.1, Bank has filed written notes of argument stating, ‘’ Now it is pertinent to refer a ruling in a similar case passed by Hon’ble National Commission is State Bank of India & Anr. Vs Laxmibai Vinayak Ingale: in Revision Petition No. 501 of 2017 the Hon’ble Commission observed that ‘’there is nothing on record to indicate that the deceased had in fact either paid or issued instruction to the Petitioner Bank to transfer Rs. 93,000/- as premium to SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. to facilitate the insurance cover against the home loan which he obtained. Under these circumstances, the deficiency in service, if any, on the part of the Petitioner Bank has not been established.’’
We perused the cited decision. In the case in hand we find that SBI Life has been made party to this case where as in the cited decision SBI Life had not been made party. In the case in hand we find the existence of Master Policy Holder where as we find no whisper as to Master Policy Holder in the cited decision. Moreover, facts and circumstances of the case in hand is not similar to that of the cited decision.
It is not the matter relating to obtaining of an individual insurance policy more so the OP No.1 Bank obtained master insurance policy from the OP No.2 SBI Life but failed to complete documentation pertaining to the deceased husband of the Complainant.
For the forgoing reasons we find deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1, SBI Bank and as the contract of insurance was not concluded due to deficiency of service on the part of the OP No.1, SBI Bank, the OP No.2 SBI Life cannot be blamed. The OP No.1 SBI Bank is liable to pay compensation equal to the sum assured of Rs. 9,66,234/- minus Rs.23,234/- (as it is not paid) i.e. Rs. 9,43,000/- .
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 07.07.21 and admitted on 09.08.21. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case is allowed.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the case bearing No. CC/27/2021 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP No. 1, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, RACC RNBD Berhampore but the same is dismissed against OP No. 2.
Complainant is directed to go on paying the loan installment amounts for avoiding complicacy.
The Complainant is entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs. 9,43,000/- from the OP No.1, State Bank of India.
OP No.1, State Bank of India is directed to pay the compensation amounting to Rs. 9,43,000/-(Rupees Nine Lakh Forty three Thousand only) to the Complainant within 60 days from the date of this order i.d. the total amount of Rs. 9,43,000/- will carry interest @ 6% pa from the date of this order.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member President.
