Date of filing:- 20/07/2013
Date of Order:- 22/04/2015
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FOURM (COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Dispute Case No. 35 of 2013.
Smt. Jhunu Pradhan, aged about 43(forty three) years, wife of late Kabi Pradhan, Occupation-House Wife, R/o Kalimandir Road, Gyandas lane, Ward No.13, Bargarh, Po/Ps/Dist. Bargarh.
..... ..... ..... Complainant.
State Bank of India Bargarh Branch through it's Branch Manager, R/o Canal Avenue Bargarh, Po. Bargarh under Ps. Bargarh, Dist. Bargarh.
General Manager, S.B.I., Life Insurance Co. Ltd, “Natraj” M.V.Road and Western Express Junction Andheri (East) Mumbai-400069
..... ..... ..... Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri S.P.Mahapatra, Advocate with others Advocates.
For the Opposite Party No.1(one):- Sri B. Behera, Advocate.
For the Opposite party No.2(two):- Sri J. Sarangi, Advocate.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Mrs Anjali Behera ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r.
Dt.22/04/2015. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
President by Miss R. Pattnayak, President.
(1) Alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (In short OPs), the
Complainant as a nominee of her husband has claimed a compensation of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand)only and also prayed for directing the Opposite Parties to settle the outstanding housing loan of Rs.64,641/-(Rupees sixty four thousand six hundred forty one)only against loan account No.30097385608 with reference to policy No.83001000203 and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only as litigation cost and further to direct the O.P No.2 to issue no dues and clearance certificate in favour of the Complainant.
(2) The brief facts of the case of the Complainant are that her deceased husband Kabi Pradhan had obtained a housing loan of Rs.3,50,000/-(Rupees three lakh fifty thousand)only repayable in 120(one hundred twenty) EMI of Rs.4,480/-(Rupees four thousand four hundred eighty)only per month vide loan A/c No.30097385608 from the Opposite Party No.1(one) and as per the instruction of the Bank Enrolled himself under the SBI Life Super Surakhya home loan scheme under O.P NO.2 vide policy no. 83001000203 to indemnify the Bank in case of premature death of the lonee. On receipt of premium amount Late Kabi Pradhan was enrolled under Housing loan borrower insurance scheme and then the risk of repayment of such housing loan commenced with effect from dated 30.11.2006. While the matter stood thus and while the loan amount was regularly paid, suddenly on Dt.27/10/2012, the husband of the complainant died when there was an outstanding loan amount existed at Rs. 2,92,992.71/-(Rupees two lakh ninety two thousand nine hundred ninety two rupee seventy one paise)only. On such untimely death of the husband of the complainant, the O.P. No.1 claimed the insurance amount from the O.P. No.2 and the O.P. No.2 only paid Rs.2,28,351/-(Rupees two lakh twenty eight thousand three hundred fifty one)only out of the outstanding amount of Rs. 2,92,992.71/-(Rupees two lakh ninety two thousand nine hundred ninety two rupee seventy one paise)only leaving an amount of Rs. 64,641/-(Rupees sixty four thousand six hundred forty one)only as balance outstanding loan amount and now Opposite Party No. 1(one) issued demand Notice to the Complainant for repayment of rest outstanding loan amount. Complainant further submitted that her husband has been insured with the Opposite Party No.2(two) at the instance of the O.P. No.1(one) to indemnity the bank (Opposite Party No.1) in case of his untimely death prior to repayment of the loan, But now the OP No.2(two) insurance company is not paying the balance outstanding amount as on the date of death of the lonee. By not making repayment of entire outstanding loan amount existed on the date of death of the Complainant is nothing but the violation of contractual obligation and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties.
Being aggrieved the Nominee Smt. Jhunu Pradhan, wife of the deceased has filed this case before this forum to get the natural Justice.
(3) In support of her case, the Complainant has filed the following documents.
(a) Copy of demand Notice issued by SBI Bargarh Dt. 18/06/2013.
(b) Copy of Acknowledgment issued by SBI, Life insurance Bargarh Dt.16/03/2013.
© Copy of Bank Statement issued by SBI, Bargarh.
(d) Copy of demand Notice issued by SBI, Bargarh Dt.27/07/2013.
(4) Notices were duly served upon the Opposite parties. The Opposite Party have represented through their learned counsel and filed version separately where in they resisted all the allegation the Complainant.
(5) The Opposite Party No.1(one) in their version has admitted that the deceased husband of the Complainant had obtained a house building loan of Rs.3,50,000/-(Rupees three lakh fifty thousand)only from SBI Commercial Branch, Bargarh which is now know as SBI , SME Branch Bargarh, and had also been covered under an insurance policy bearing No.83001000203 from the Opposite Party No.2(Two) after paying the regularized premium to indemnity the Bank in case of premature death of the Lonee prior to the repayment of the loan amount.
It is also admitted by the Opposite Party No.1(one) that the Complainant was
placed his SBI Life insurance Policy No.060512012 before the Opposite Party No.1(one) bank at the time of taking loan with a view that after maturity of the policy the maturity amount paid by SBI Life Insurance will be adjusted from his loan account . After getting intimation about the death of the Lonee from the Complainant the Opposite Party No.1(one) bank send all relevant documents along with the banker certificate to Opposite Party No.2(two) showing the outstanding amount of Rs.2,84,706/-(Rupees two lakh eighty four thousand seven hundred six)only which includes the principal amount with the interest. But after receipt of the necessary documents, the Opposite Party No.2(two) made only a payment of Rs. 2,28,351/-( Rupees two lakh twenty eight thousand three hundred fifty one)only in favour of the Complainant and the same has been credited in the loan account of the husband, although there is still outstanding amount of Rs.64,641/-( Rupees sixty four thousand six hundred forty one)only with interest is due for closure of the loan account. Further submitted that he is not liable for the fault if any made by the Opposite Party No.2(two) because both are separate statutory body having their own identify and having a separate management system. As such he is no way connected in this case and in order to avoid the repayment of loan amount having ulterior motive , the Complainant has filed this case against him. The Opposite Party No.1(one) bank has always provide proper service to the decease husband of the complainant and after his death to the present complainant also. It is denied that there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party No.1(one) Bank.
(6) The 2nd Opposite Party/SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd has filed separate version. It is pointed out that in case of group insurance Scheme, for the borrowers of Home loan from state bank of India, the borrower member is offered insurance subject to the terms and conditions in corporate in the master policy and a master policy was issued in favour of SBI bearing No.83001000203 subject which the insurance coverage is between the master policy holder and insurance.
It is mentioned that the DLA had availed a Home loan and was insured under master Policy No.83001000203 of the Opposite Party No.2(two) having date of commencement of insurance cover as 16/01/2007. The premium paid was Rs.7,901/-(Rupees seven thousand nine hundred one)only. The DLA is reported to have died on 27/10/2012. The death claim was intimated to him on Dt.26/11/2012. On receipt of the death intimation, the claim was admitted and the out standing loan amount of Rs. 2,28,351/-( Rupees two lakh twenty eight thousand three hundred fifty one)only was paid vide cheque bearing No. 430640 Dt.30/11/2012 to the master policy holder in accordance to the terms and conditions of the master policy. There fore the Complainants demand for additional amount of Rs.64,641/-(Rupees sixty four thousand six hundred forty one)only to wards the shortage in payment towards the death benefit is irrational and not at all maintainable. As per the schedule 11 point No.6, it is specifically provided that :-
'' In the event of death of the member at any time after 45 days (except accidental death), from the date of commencement of Risk, subject to the policy being in full force, but not later than the member completing the age of 70(seventy) years to pay the grantees or any person so authorized by the grantees the sum assured. Further under the said master policy as per schedule 11, point No.7, sum Assured ''The sum Assured means the out standing loan amount including interest in the name of the member in the books of the grantees and calculated as per the original EMI repayment schedule''. Thus in the instant case he has (Opposite Party No.2(two) already made the payment to the master policy holder as per the original EMI schedule as per the terms and conditions of the master policy. Therefore the Opposite Party is not liable to cover any fluctuations in the interest rates or for any default in the payment of EMIs by the borrower. Thus the Complain deserves to be dismissed in liminee. As he has (Opposite Party No.2) duly discharged their obligation, there fore no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice can be alleged on the part of the OP No.2(two). In the version, the OP No.2(two) have cited the decision of Hon'ble National Commission Passed in revision petition No.211/2009 Reliance industries Vrs Madhava Charya and first Appeal No.157/2006 [IND Swift Limited V/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd.”
In support of their case the OP No.2(two) have relied upon the following documents:
Copy of the Master policy Annexure-A.
Copy of the Payment letter Dt.01/12/2012 - Annexure B.
Copy of the Mail claiming shortage in amount paid - Annexure C.
Copy of the Letter Dt.16/03/2013 in amount paid - Annexure D.
Copy of the Certificate of Insurance in amount paid - Annexure E.
Copy of the Member ship from in amount paid - Annexure F.
Copy of the Calculation sheet in amount paid - Annexure G.
Copy of the Loan calculator in amount paid - Annexure H.
Affidavit of Evidence.
(7) We have gone through the case of the parties and heard the arguments on the date of hearing from the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. We have also perused the documents filed on record.
(8) On perusal we found that it is explained in the master policy that in the event of the death of the member, the insurer will pay the sum assured to the grantees (bank) or any person so authorized by the grantee. It is further mentioned in the schedule-11, clause-6 of the master policy, the sum assured will be equivalent to out standing loan amounts including interest as per the original EMI schedule. It is also mentioned there in that the grantees shall on receipt of the sum assured liquidate the loan amount due from the member as per the original EMI schedule and remit the surplus amount if any to the nominee. Clause-7 of the schedule-11 defines the sum assured as the out standing loan account including interest, in the name of the member in the books of grantee and calculated as per the original EMI repayment schedule in respect of which the premium is payable. In the instant case we found that the Complainant has paid all the premium. The allegation of the complainant is that after the death of her husband the Opposite Party No.2(two) has violated the contractual obligation as per the insurance policy. Opposite Party No.2(two) paid only Rs.2,28,351/-(Rupees two lakh twenty eight thousand three hundred fifty one)only out of the outstanding loan amount leaving as amount of Rs.64,641/-( Rupees sixty four thousand six hundred forty one)only as balance outstanding loan amount and now Opposite Party No.1(one) bank issued demand Notice to the Complainant for repayment of such outstanding loan amount. To this allegation, the Opposite Party No.2(two) submitted that, as per the terms condition of the master policy and as per original EMI schedule at the Rate interest 11.00 %, the SBI life has paid Rs.2,28,351/-( Rupees two lakh twenty eight thousand three hundred fifty one)only as the death claim due. Thus the amount as per the original EMI schedule i.e. Rs.2,28,351/-( Rupees two lakh twenty eight thousand three hundred fifty one)only is already settled and nothing more is payable sender the said policy. As per the Bank statement issued by SBI, Bargarh (Opposite Party No.1) the outstanding loan amount on the date of death of the insured was Rs.2,92,992.00(Rupees two lakh ninety two thousand nine hundred ninety two)only calculating interest @ 12.95% per annum. In the master policy No where mentioned that what will be the rate of interest to be calculated. The Opposite Party No.1(one) calculated interest @12.95% per annum and give the statement that on the date of death Rs2,92,992/-((Rupees two lakh ninety two thousand nine hundred ninety two)only was outstanding. Opposite Party No.2(two) calculated the interest @11.00 % per annum give the statement that on the date of death Rs.2,28,351/-(Rupees two lakh twenty eight thousand three hundred fifty one)only was outstanding. on perusal of the master policy, we found that there was an agreement between the company and grantee. No copy of agreement was filed either by the Opposite Party No.1(one) or Opposite Party No.2(two). So in the absence of agreement copy has the forum will come to conclusion about the fixation of EMI schedule, term and percentage of the rate of interest agreed by them. It is also no where mentioned in the term and conditions of the master policy that in case of excess interest who will liable to pay . So the absence of the agreement copy given wattage to the grievance of the Complainant. Hence the version of Complainant is accepted and we find that the Complainant is entitled to have the above amount.
O R D E R
(1) The Opposite Party No.2(two) is here by directed to reimburse to the Opposite Party No.1(one) with an amount of Rs.64,641/-( Rupees sixty four thousand six hundred forty one)only on account of repayment of balance outstanding loan amount vide account No.30097385608 with reference to policy No.83001000203 stands in the name of Late Kabi Pradhan.
(2) Further the Opposite Party No.1(one) is here by directed to realize such amount of Rs.64,641/-( Rupees sixty four thousand six hundred forty one)only as outstanding loan amount from the Opposite Party No.2(two) and issue No Dues and clearance certificate in favour of the Complainant and return the mortgage documents to the Complainant.
(3) The Opposite Party No.1(one) and Opposite Party No.2(two) is further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 4,000/-(Rupees four thousand)only towards mental agony, harassment and litigation for forcing the Complainant to file the litigation.
All these Act must be complied with in one months of the date of order, failing which the Complainant will be entitled for interest @12 %(twelve percent) per annum on the amount due till realization .
Case is disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
(Miss Rajlaxmi Pattnayak)
P r e s i d e n t.
I agree, I agree,
(Sri Pradeep Kumar Dash) ( Smt. Anjali Behera)
M e m b e r. M e m b e r.
