District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.301/2022.
Date of Institution:06.06.2022.
Date of Order: 29.02.2024.
1. Smt. Pushpa W/o late Shri Prabhu Dayal.
2. Chhail Bihari S/o Late Shri Prabhu Dayal.
3. Vihay Kumar S/o late Shri Prabhu Dayal.
4. Ashish S/o late Shri Prabhu Dayal
All R/o H. No. C-523, Dabua Colony, Near Purani Subzi Mandi, Faridabad Legal heirs of deceased Shri Prabhu Dayal).
…….Complainants……..
Versus
1. Canara Bank (formerly Syndicate Bank), Sector-21C, Faridabad through its Branch Manager.
2. Tata AIG General Insurance co. Ltd., Second floor, SCO-35, Sector-14, Gurugram, Haryana – 122001 through its Branch Manager.
…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Avinash Kumar , counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Amit Bhalla , counsel for opposite party No.1.
Sh. Sanjay Rawat, counsel for opposite party No.2
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the husband of the complainant No.1 and father of complainant Nos.2 to 4 namely Mr. Prabhu Dayal had taken a Housing Loan/mortage loan of Rs.14,50,000/- vide loan A/c No. 82999830000093 of customer ID 233919519 from the opposite parties No.1 on dated 02.08.2017. Mr. Prabhu Dayal had expired on 08.04.2021 due to Heart Attack, leaving behind the complainants as his legal heirs. After the death of Mr. Prabhu Dayal, the opposite party No.1 had contacted with the complainant and put pressure upon the complainant to make the remaining payment of the said loan amount i.e. Rs.6,15,656/-. It was also be noted that during his life time Shri Prabhu Dayal had already made the payment of Rs.17,34,382/- to the opposite party No.1. Hence, an amount of Rs.23,50,038/- approx. had been paid to the opposite party No.1 in total against the loan of Rs.14,50,000/-. The complainant had deposited all the outstanding payment of the above said loan amount with the opposite party No.1 without making any enquiry as well as on the faith of words of the officials of opposite party No.1 on dated 31.08.2021. The complainants were in need of money for their family purpose, hence, they had approached to several financial institutions e.g. Govt., Semi govt. and Private Institutions from which it had come to the knowledge of the complainants that if any bank of financial institution would provide the Housing Loan Facility to the borrower then the said bank/financial institution had got insured the house/mortgage property from Insurance Company and would also get home loan insurance regarding safety of its loan amount in case of untimely death/accident of the borrower. Thereafter the complainant many times contacted with the opposite party No.1 and asked about the home insurance/home loan insurance of Mr. Prabhu Dayal then it came to the knowledge of the complainant that at the time of giving the loan facility to Mr. Prabhu Dayal, the opposite party No.1 had got insured the house of Mr. Prabhu Dayal form the opposite party No.2 vide insurance policy, which was renewed on 05.02.2021 vide policy No. 1901749948 valid from 05.02.2021 to 04.02.2026 and provide the copy of bond policy to the complainant. Thereafter the complainants many times requested the opposite party No.1 to provide the copy of bond of home loan insurance but neither they given any satisfactory reply to the complainant till date nor provide the copy of bond of home loan insurance to the complainant till date. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) pay Rs.6,15,656/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of payment of the said amount till its actual final realization and any other excess amount paid to opposite party No.1.
b) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party No.1 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.1 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that loan account had been closed by the legal heirs of late Shri Prabhu Dayal by repaying the entire outstanding amount. Consequent upon closure of the loan account, title documents of the property as well as other documents had been released to legal heirs of Shri Prabhu Dayal. It was submitted that the loan account had been closed by the legal heirs of late Shri Prabhu Dayal by repaying the entire outstanding amount. At the time of availing home loan, late Shri Prabhu Dayal had taken insurance policy bearing No. 1901749948 offering cover against Fire and Earthquake to the property of deceased borrower. The policy did not cover the death of the borrower/policy holder. Opposite party No. 1 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. Opposite party No. 2 put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party No.2 refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that in the present case, the company had not received any death claim form in respect of the subject policy from the complainant till date and hence the opposite party company shall evaluate the claim upon the receipt of all the relevant documents in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy and guidelines of the IRDAI. The complainant had not filed any proof of intimation of claim which shows that the claim was not intimated to the opposite party in fact, no document had been filed by the complainant and therefore, it was appropriate to state that the complainant had not filed its claim with the opposite party company. Mr. Prabhu Daya had opted the Housing loan/mortgage loan of Rs.14,50,000/- vide loan a/c. No. 82999830000093 dated 02.08.2017 from opposite party No.1. As per process, the opposite party received details form Canara Bank to source the policy in favour of the DLs Sales team shared a quote to Canara Bank and based on attached quote policy issued by company post the receipt of the premium amounting to Rs.2,738/-. The said subject policy was issued only to cover his house against fire/special perils, riot strike malicious damage, storm/tempest/flood/tornado (STFI) and earthquake with coverage amount of Rs.14,50,000/-. However, as apparent from the complaint, the DLA had died on 08.04.2021 due to heart attack. Hence, the opposite party company was not liable to pay the claim amount to the complainant, even if the claim was registered by the complainant in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy document. Opposite party No. 2 denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
6. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite parties–Canara Bank & Ors. with the prayer to: a) pay Rs.6,15,656/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of payment of the said amount till its actual final realization and any other excess amount paid to opposite party No.1. b) pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .c) pay Rs.21,000/- as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW-1/A – affidavit of Smt. Pushpa, Ex.CW1/1 – statement of account,, Ex.CW1/2 – death certificate., Ex.CW1/3 – Bararnama, Ex.CW1/4 – certificate dated 03.01.2022, Ex.CW1/5 – insurance policy,, Ex.CW1/6 – Agreed Bank Clause,, Ex.CW1/7 – Ex. CW1/7 – Benefit Earthquake (Fire & Shock), Ex,.CW1/6 – receipt, Ex.CW1/9 – adhaar card,, Ex.CW2/A – affidavit of Chhail Bihari S/o late Shri Prabhu Dayal R/o H.No. C-523, Dabua Colony, Near Purani Subzi Mandi, Faridabad,, Ex.CW3/A – affidavit of Vijay Kumar S/o late Sh. Prabhu Dayal R/o H.No. C-523, Dabua Colony, Near Purani Subzi Mandi, Faridabad., Ex.CW3/1 – adhaar card,, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Ashish S/o late Sh. Prabhu Dayal R/o H.NO.C-523, Dabua Colony, Near Purani subzi Mandi, Faridabad,, Ex.CW4/1 – adhaar card,
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party No.1 strongly agitated and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party No.1 Ex.RW1/A – affidavit of Shri Poonam, Manager, Canara Bank, Sector-21C, Faridabad, Distt. Faridabad,, Ex.R-1 – General agreement,
As per evidence of opposite party No.2 vide Ex.RW-2/1A affidavit of Sh. GG Padmakar Tripathi, Authorized Representative of Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Having office at TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd., Peninsula Business Park, 15th floor, Tower A, G.K.Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013,Ex.RW1/1 – proposal quote, Ex.RW-2/2 – policy.
7. In this case, the complaint was filed by the complainant with the prayer to pay Rs.6,15,656/- alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of payment of the said amount till its actual final realization and any other excess amount paid to opposite party No.1.
8. As per proposal quote vide Ex.RW-2/A the opposite party company had duly received the proposal form filled by the late Mr. Prabhu Dayal from opposite party No.1. Based on the information furnished in the proposal form, the opposite party company issued policy bearing No. 1901749948 in favour of the Deceased Life Assured. The details of the said policy are as under:
Policy Number | 1901749948 |
Policy type | Home Secure Fire & Special Perils Policy. |
Name of policy holder | Mr. Prabhu Dayal |
Period | 05.02.2021 to 04.02.206 |
As per Ex.RW-2/2, the insurance policy was issued only to cover his house against Fie/Special Perils, riot Strike Malicious Damage, Storm/Tempest/Flood/Torado (STFI) and Earthquake with coverage amount of Rs.14,50,000/-. As per Ex.CW1/2 the DLA had died on 08.04.2021.
9. After going through the evidence led by the complainant as well as the opposite parties, the Commission is of the opinion that the insurance policy was issued only to cover his house against fire/special perils, riot strike malicious damage, storm/tempest/flood/tornado (STFI) and earthquake with coverage amount of Rs.14,50,000/-. The Deceased Life Assured (DLA) had died on 08.04.2021 due to heart attack. At the time of availing home loan, late Shri Prabhu Dayal had taken insurance policy bearing No. 1901749948 offering cover against Fire and Earthquake to the property of deceased borrower. The policy did not cover the death of the borrower/policy holder. No deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties have been proved. Resultantly,, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 29.02.2024. (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
