DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, JHARSUGUDA
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 34 OF 2014
Nirmala Agrawal (58 Year)
Occp: House Wife,
W/O: Late Ratan Lal Agrawal,
R/O: Tiwaridham, Gousala Road,
PO/PS/Dist: Jharsuguda, Odisha………………………..………………………. Complainant.
Versus
1. Chief Manager,
State Bank of India, Main Branch,
PO/PS/Dist:-Jharsuguda
2. Branch Manager, SBI Life
Behind Sitla Mandir,
Marwaripada, Jharsuguda
PO/PS/Dist:-Jharsuguda, Odisha...…………..................................... Opp. Parties.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant Shri D.K.Jain, Adv. & Associates
For the O.P. No. 1 Shri K.C.Agrawal, Adv. & Associates.
For the O.P.No.2 Shri S.K.Das, Adv. & Associates.
Date of Order: 12.01.2015
Present
1. Shri S.K. Ojha, Sr. Member.
2. Smt.A. Nanda, Member (W).
Shri S. K. Ojha, Sr. Member: - The complainant’s case in brief is that, the complainant’s husband namely Late Ratan Lal Agrawal, during his life time, had taken a Housing loan from the O.P. No.1 for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- only in the month of April 2008 having loan account No. 30346266873, in which the complainant was mentioned as nominee. A group insurance policy had taken by the O.P No.1 from the O.P.No.2 of all the housing loan borrowers vide master policy No. 83001000203. As per the terms and conditions of the said policy the O.P No.2 shall pay the outstanding loan amount to the O.P.No.1 in case the death occurred in between the loan repayment period. The said husband of the complainant has died on dtd. 10.02.2013 and on that date the total outstanding loan amount was Rs. 6,49,999/- only. But the O.P No.2 has paid Rs. 3,89,457/- only to the O.P.No.1 leaving a balance of Rs.2,60,512/- only. The complainant and her son lodged a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman but no any satisfactory result has come out, as a result the complainant by finding no other way knocked the door of this Hon’ble Forum for proper adjudication of the matter by alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the O.Ps by filing relevant documents.
On service of the notices, the O.Ps appeared and filed their written statements through their respective counsels.
The O.P No.1 denied all the allegations except the loan sanctioned for amount of Rs.7,00,000/- only along with Rs.82,467/- only towards premium to the O.P.No.2 vide loan account No. 30346266873 and further submitted that the O.P No.2 has paid Rs. 3,89,457/- only on dtd. 10.06.2013 and Rs.65,902/- only on dt. 11.09.2014 and the present outstanding is Rs. 2,45,286/- only and filed a statement of accounts.
The O.P No.2 submitted that he had followed the terms and conditions of the Master Policy and remitted Rs.4,55,359/- only to the O.P No.1 towards full and final settlement amount against the said loan account of the complainant’s deceased husband. The O.P No.2 has also filed relevant documents in support of his case, denying all the allegations imposed by the complainant and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Heard from the parties in length and perused the case record along with the materials available.
For proper adjudication of the case, following issues are framed such as :
- Whether the O.P No.2 has rightly remitted the settlement amount to the O.P No.1 or not?
- Whether the borrower had repaid his loan amount properly or not?
- Whether the O.P No.1 has properly abide by the terms and conditions of the loan to the borrower or not?
While discussing on the very first issue, the complainants’ deceased husband namely Ratan Lal Agrawal had taken a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- only as Housing Loan from the O.P.No.1 against which a group insurance policy taken by the O.P.No1 of housing loan borrowers from the O.P No.2 by filling up a “SBI Life- Home Loan Insurance” form against which the O.P No.2 issued a Certificate of Insurance namely “SBI Life – Super Suraksha” bearing Account No. 30346266873 in favour of the borrower (the deceased husband of the complainant) mentioning that, “We hereby certify that the person named below as the Housing Loan Borrower is insured for a Sum Assured equal to the outstanding loan amount with the Bank as per the original EMI schedule, under the Group Life Insurance Scheme subject to the terms and conditions contained in the Master Policy Document issued to the Group Administrator”.
By observing the “Home Loan Insurance - Master Policy” issued by the O.P.No.2 bearing No. 83001000203, in Schedule II (7) it has mentioned that, “The Sum Assured means the outstanding home loan account, including interest, in the name of the Member in the books of the Grantees and calculated as per the original EMI repayment schedule, in respect of which the premium is payable as shown below”.
Para 5 of Schedule IV of the said Master Policy reflects that, “ In case of premature repayment of any loan instalment by the Member ahead of the agreed EMI repayment schedule, and subsequent death of such Member during the tenure of the original EMI repayment schedule, the Company would pay the Sum Assured to the branch of the Grantees where the loan is availed. The branch would liquidate the amount outstanding in the loan account and pay the surplus amount, if any, to the nominee and the cover stands extinguished”.
The O.P. No.2 filed two Nos. of Loan Calculator on loan amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- only vide Annexure-E and Annexure-G1. Annexure-E reflects 58 Nos. of payments, Start Date of loan- 07.04.2008 having ending balance of Rs.3,89,457.18P only, while Annexure-G1 shows 48 Nos. of payments, Start Date of Loan- 19.01.2009, having ending balance Rs. 4,55,358.92P. In answer to the difference occurred in two repayment schedules, the O.P.No.2 submitted that, “while calculating the outstanding loan amount, the EMI start date was considered as 07.05.2008 as the insurance cover was commenced on 07.04.2008. However, as per the bank statement, EMI started on 19.02.2009. Accordingly the answering O.P has recalculated the outstanding loan amount with the starting date of EMI as 19.02.2009 and accordingly, it was found that the outstanding loan amount as on the date of death is Rs. 4,55,358.92P”. As per the said schedule the O.P No.2 has already paid Rs. 4,55,359/- only to the O.P.No.1 in total (i.e. Rs.3,89,457/- only vide cheque No.652745, dtd. 27.05.2013 and Rs.65,902/- only vide cheque No.741688, dtd. 28.08.2014). Thus, it has been cleared that the O.P.No.2 has rightly paid the outstanding dues amount as per the loan schedule which also indicates that the complainant’s husband (borrower) had also repaid accordingly as per the loan schedule as such the issue No.i and ii have been answered.
So far as the issue No. 3 is concerned, the abovementioned all calculations, remittance and /or obeying of the terms and conditions of the Master Policy of the group insurance and the repayment schedule as mentioned in the Certificate of Insurance issued by O.P No.2 in favour of the borrower are based on the Sum Assured / Loan amount sanctioned i.e Rs. 7,00,000/- only, but by minutely observing the Annexure-B and C, filed by O.P.No.2, so also the “Housing Finance to Individuals Appraisal Form” filed by the O.P.No.1 it is found that, the O.P No.1 has sanctioned loan of Rs. 7,82,467/- only in total (i.e. Rs. 7,00,000/- only towards loan amount and Rs. 82,467/- only towards single premium amount for the insurance coverage). The total loan amount was payable by the borrower in 132 EMIs / 11 years under the Housing Loan. Although the rate of interest is calculated on floated mode @ 10.25% but for the proper adjudication of the matter the proper terms and conditions of the said loan are highly essential on which the said housing loan is based on which the O.P.No.1 has failed to file.
In between of the insurance company and the Bank, the borrower is in dark of the rule and regulations or on the certain terms and conditions of the bank regarding the loan he had taken, but he had assured on the terms and conditions of the insurance company and the Certificate of Insurance and after incident/death of the borrower, his nominee found to be payable further to the bank. In conclusion, the deficiency in service found on the part of O.P.No.1 as the O.P.No.1 has failed to provide the proper guidelines / the terms and conditions of the said housing loan sanctioned to the borrower ( the complainant’s husband) whereas the O.P.No.2 has settled the insurance claim as per his terms and conditions of the Master Policy and the Certificate of Insurance. Hence we are inclined to allow the complaint petition by directing the O.P.No.1 to settle the loan account of the complainant’s husband bearing loan account No. 30346266873 and issue “No dues Certificate” in favour of the said loan account along with pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- ( Rupees two thousand) only towards mental agony and litigation costs within 30(thirty) days from the date of receipt of this order.
Accordingly the case is disposed of.
Order pronounced in the open court today on this the 12th day of January,2015, copy of this order shall be communicated to the parties as per Rule.
I Agree.
Sd/ -A.Nanda, Member (W) Sd/-S. K. Ojha, Sr. Member
Dictated and corrected by me.
Sd/- S. K. Ojha, Sr. Member.
