THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

 

CASE No. CC- 01  of  2021

 

Sri Pintu Sinha,

S/O- Lt. Narottam Sinha,

Bankim Nagar, Barjala,

Near Jirania Rail Station,

P.S. Jirania, District- West Tripura

Pin-799045.   .................Complainant.

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

1. Branch Manager,

United Bank of India(Under Punjab National Bank),

Jirania Branch, P.O. Jirania, P.S. Jirania,

West Tripura, Pin- 7990045.

 

 

2. Managing Director & CEO,

PNB Met Life India Insurance Company Limited,

1st Floor, Techniplex-1, Techniplex Complex,

Off Veer Savarkar Flyover, Goregaon(West),

Mumbai- 400062. …............Opposite parties.

 

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

For the Complainant : Sri  Bhaskar Debbarma,

  Sri Debasish Rakshit,

  Learned Advocates.

  

For the O.P. No.1 & 2 : Miss Leena Sarkar,

     Learned Advocate.

 

  

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 27.12.2022.

 

J U D G M E N T

The case arose due to a complaint petition being filed by Sri Pintu Sinha, S/o Lt. Narottam Sinha, Jirania West Tripura (here-in-after referred to as ‘Complainant’) against the Branch Manager, UBI Jirania Branch, West Tripura (here-in-after referred to as ‘O.P.1’) and Managing Director & CEO, PNB Met Life India Insurance Company Ltd., Goregaon (West), Mumbai (here-in-after referred to as ‘O.P.2’) U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

2. The averments of the case, in short, are that the mother of the Complainant deceased Rekha Sinha (here-in-after referred to as ‘deceased-borrower’) availed a loan amounting to Rs.2,60,000 on 15.5.2020 from erstwhile United Bank of India (presently known as Punjab National Bank), Jirania Branch. The deceased-borrower used to draw her pension from the same Bank-branch. The installment towards recovery of loan commenced on 01.06.2020. Thereafter, at the instance of the O.P.1, the deceased-borrower took an insurance cover for her loan amounting to Rs.2,60,000 with O.P.2 by paying a one-time premium of Rs.14,392 on 04.7.2020. The premium was received by O.P.1 on behalf of O.P.2. It was assured to the deceased-borrower by O.P.1 that the policy would be operated by the O.P.2 and claim, if any, emerges at the subsequent stage against the policy would be paid by the O.P.2. Subsequently, the deceased-borrower had expired on 13.8.2020 and information of her death was reported to O.P.1 and O.P.2 on time. Now, as per the said policy of insurance, the deceased-borrower is entitled to receive the benefit of insurance cover due to her death towards the loan left behind by her. In pursuance of the same, a claim petition for payment of insured amount was preferred with O.P.1 but the same was rejected while refunding the one-time premium amount of Rs.14,392 by the O.P.2 on 03.10.2020. On being so aggrieved, the Complainant has filed the complaint petition against the O.P.1 and 2 to this Commission. Hence, this case.  

 

3. The O.P.1 has contested the case by filing written statement wherein they refuted and disproved all the charges being made against them by the Complainant. It has been averred by them that they are the financing bank of the loan, and, therefore, in no way connected to the affairs between the insurer and the insured. They have also submitted that O.P.2 is not a subsidiary company of theirs, as described by the Complainant, rather they are a mere share holder of the company. O.P.1 maintained that they had no role in regards to the insurance policy availed by the deceased-borrower from the O.P.2.

 

4. Despite adequate time and opportunities being allowed to O.P.2 for filing written statement they failed to submit the same and their case remained as un-contested for taking up the further proceedings of the case. Therefore, the case proceeded exparte against the O.P.2.

 

5. The Complainant examined himself and filed an evidence-in chief (PW1) by way of affidavit stating therein the similar points which have been specified and described by him in the complaint petition. Besides, one Sri Narayan Prasad Dasgupta. S/o Lt. Banamali Dasgupta of Radhanagar, Agartala who declared himself as to be the brother-in-law of the Complainant has also submitted his evidence-in-chief (PW2) by way of affidavit. One Sri Suptik Ghoshal, Chief Manager of PNB has submitted his evidence-in-chief by way of affidavit (DW) by echoing the same version as submitted through the written statement. 

 

6. Now, the points to be decided in the case are as follows:

(i) Whether the O.P.1 and 2 have committed any deficiency of service and adopted unfair trade practice against the Complainant or not?

(ii) Whether the Complainant is entitled to receive compensation, as being sought for?

(iii) If the answer of the question as per serial 5(ii) above is ‘yes’ in such case what would be the quantum of compensation/ relief?  

 

7. We have heard the arguments from the sides of the Complainant and O.P.1 and, which are as follows:

  (i) It has been pleaded from the side of the Complainant that the deceased-borrower availed a loan of Rs.2,60,000 from the O.P.1 against her pension payment account. Thereafter, at the instance of the O.P.1, the insurance cover was taken from the O.P.2 by paying a one-time premium of Rs.14,392 on 04.7.2020 in respect of the outstanding loan amount. The one-time premium amount was received by the O.P.1 on behalf of O.P.2. But, unfortunately, the deceased-borrower died on 13.08.2020 of cardiac arrest and the matter was duly intimated to the O.P.1 and 2 from the side of the Complainant. Following that, the Complainant staked a claim of the insured amount with O.P.1 against the loan. But with their utter surprise they received a letter on 3.10.2020 from O.P.2 whereby the O.P.2 rejected the claim while refunding the one-time premium Rs. 14,392. It is strongly pleaded by the side of the Complainant that the O.P.2 had unilaterally and arbitrarily rejected their claim by violating the every norms of the insurance cover as it did not suit to their benefit and which amounts to committing of deficiency of service. It is also pleaded that the O.P.1 took an important role to pursue and convince the deceased-borrower to have the insurance policy cover and, thus, they acted in collusion with O.P.2 to adopt unfair trade practice. It is finally submitted that the Complainant is entitled to get a relief of Rs.5 lacs, which includes the insured cover against the outstanding loan amount, from O.P.1 and 2.

 

8. On the other hand, the O.P.1 has submitted that they were having no role in facilitating the deceased-borrower to take the insurance cover, in question, from O.P.2. It is submitted that O.P.2 is a separate business entity and having no business relation with them. They are the mere share holder of the O.P.2. O.P.2 has denied over the charge levelled against them by the Complainant that the insurance was availed at their instance and insistence by the deceased-borrower. It is further pleaded that the matter was in between the insurer and the insured and thus they had nothing to do in the matter. Therefore, they prayed to the Commission to absolve them from the charges being made out by the Complainant.

 

9. We have traveled over the documents submitted by the parties, so being relied by them. We have also taken into consideration the pleadings put forth by the Complainant and the O.P.1. We have taken all the points together for the convenience to decide the case. The application form (for group creditors) submitted by the deceased-borrower to the O.P.2 while initiating the process to avail the insurance cover by her makes a clear revelation that the deceased-borrower was a member of the Group Insurance Policy against her loan with O.P. No.1. It is further revealed therefrom that the Punjab National Bank is the group policy holder. It is also transpired from the application form that an amount Rs.14,392 had been received by O.P.1 on behalf of O.P.2 on 04.07.2020.

 

10. Subsequently, the deceased-borrower died on 13.8.2020. On being taken up with O.P.2 for release of the benefit of the insurance policy towards death of the deceased-borrower, the O.P.2 through their letter dated 3.10.2020 refunded Rs.14,392 (the one-time premium amount paid for availing the insurance cover) indicating a reason as ''NB-not taken up''. It is also noticed that as a reference, the O.P.2 had self-evidently quoted a policy number 23392766 in their letter dated 3.10.2020 which does confirm about the issuance of the insurance policy in favor of the deceased-borrower. 

 

11. The O.P.2 once issued the policy on behalf of the insured can not backtrack or shifts their ground from the commitment to pay the insured amount to liquidate/ square up the outstanding loan amount consequent to the death of deceased-borrower. The reasons shown to reject the claim, after about a period of three months since the receipt of the insurance premium, sounds very much unreasonable and irrational and in no terms can be accepted.  Therefore, by rejecting the insurance claim, the O.P.2 deliberately attempted to withdraw from the liability committed to undertake by them at the time of acceptance of the insurance proposal and; which in no uncertain term can be described as adoption of unfair trade practice. Furthermore, due to the inaction on the part of the O.P.2 for such a long duration of time to settle the claim which arose due to the death of the deceased-borrower resulted to mounting of interest burden on the loan leading to a compound effect in increasing the outstanding loan amount. Such inert action on the part of the O.P.2 is tantamount to deficiency of service.

 

12. Now coming to the role of the O.P.1, it is our considered view that they acted at the behest and on behalf of the O.P.2 to get the loan insured by the deceased-borrower. We consider that O.P.1 had acted, in this event, in promoting the business of O.P.2. Therefore, the O.P.1 can not get away from the liability with respect to the denial of the insurance claim against the death of deceased-borrower by the O.P.2. Moreover, the Punjab National Bank is the group policy holder on behalf of the group creditors and which is why the O.P.1 was required to perform a key and vital role in facilitating the early finalization of the insurance claim. But, O.P.1 lacked completely in taking any initiative to pursue the matter with O.P.2 for finalizing the claim. 

 

13. Now, keeping the points outlined in the foregone paras in view, we have no hesitation to hold that Complainant has abled to prove the perpetration of deficiency of service and adoption of unfair trade practice by the O.P.2 to our fullest satisfaction. It is also held that O.P.1 was required to take a definitive and positive role to finalize the claim eventual to the death of the deceased-borrower owing to their being the group policy holder. O.P.1, therefore, can not wash their hands by putting the onus on O.P.2. Thus, we direct the O.P.2 to pay the entire amount stands as outstanding balance against the loan A/c of the deceased-borrower within two months from the date of this order. We further order that O.P.1 shall fully discharge the Complainant from the liability of the loan left behind by the deceased-borrower once they receive the amount from O.P.2. We also order that O.P.1 and 2 shall pay Rs.8,000/- each as a compensation to the complainant within two months from the date of this order and failing which the amount shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till realization of the ordered amount.

 

15. Accordingly, all the points are decided in this case. Supply copy of this judgment to both the parties free of cost.

 

Announced.

 

 

SRI R. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER,

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA,

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.