| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER Thursday the 14th day of December 2023 CC.298/2018 Complainant Sakir Hussain, S/o. Moideen Koya, Firdouse Mahal, Opp. Bhajanamadam, P.O. Kadalundi, Kozhikode - 673302 Opposite Parties - Federal Bank,
Cheruvannur Branch, Rep. by Manager, P.O. Cheruvannur, Kozhokode – 673655 (By Adv. Sri. K. Madhumohan) - IDBI Federal Life Insurance, 22nd Floor, A wing,
Marathon Futurex, Lower Paral (East), Mumbai - 400013 (By Adv. Sri. K.P. Regha, Sri. Sunil Kumar) ORDER By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. - The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant is holding NRI account in the first opposite party bank. The complainant had availed a housing loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- from the first opposite party on 11/12/2009, through his power of attorney holder, who is none other than his wife. At the time of sanctioning loan, the bank had asked him to retain a sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- as deposit. Accordingly, a sum of Rs. 9,00,000/- only was released to him as loan. He was paying back the loan in instalments. When he approached the bank for closing the entire loan in the year 2013, the bank demanded that Rs. 10,00,000/- and interest should be repaid and informed that Rs. 1,00,000/- retained as deposit was released to the second opposite party as insurance premium. Neither the complainant nor his Power of attorney holder had ever intended to avail insurance policy or to hand over Rs. 1,00,000/- to the second opposite party. The amount was transferred for the purpose of the insurance policy without the consent or knowledge of the complainant or the power of attorney holder. The complainant was forced to repay Rs. 10,00,000/- with interest, out of which, he had not received Rs. 1,00,000/-. On 26/9/2018 Rs. 1,00,000/- was repaid to him without interest. The act of the opposite party has resulted in mental agony and hardship to the complainant, besides monetary loss. Hence the complaint claiming interest for Rs. 1,00,000/- @ 13% per annum from the date of sanctioning of the loan till 26/09/2018, along with compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-. - The opposite parties have resisted the complaint by filing written version separately wherein they have denied and disputed all the allegations and claims made against them in the complaint.
- According to the first opposite party, the complainant had availed a housing loan of Rs. 9,90,000/- from them through his wife and power of attorney holder Smt. Naseera and the same was disbursed on 11/12/2009. It is not correct to say that the bank had requested him to keep an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- out of the same in deposit with them and only the balance amount was received by him. In fact, the complainant had applied for wealth insurance policy of the second opposite party on 15/01/2010 for Rs. 5,00,000/- with yearly premium of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable for 3 years and the policy term was 10 years. The limited role of the bank was to introduce the customer to the second opposite party. It is not correct to say that the complaint never intended to take such a policy. The first premium amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was paid by him on 30/01/2010 by way of cheque issued from the joint account of the complainant and his wife and the same was made to the second opposite party.
- It is true that the complainant has closed the housing loan in 2013. On receipt of the first premium amount itself, the policy details and the booklet were sent to the complainant by the second opposite party in 2010 itself and there is no truth in saying that he was not aware of the policy till 2013.
- The complainant defaulted further premium payment and the policy was lapsed. On request of the complainant, the bank had taken up the matter of refund of the first premium of Rs. 1,00,000/- with the second opposite party and the complainant received the said amount on 26/09/2018. Thereafter he started pestering the opposite parties for a new demand for payment of interest on the said premium amount of the defaulted policy, which is legally impermissible.
- The repayment of the housing loan has nothing to do with the said policy and he is not entitled to get interest on the said premium as per the policy conditions. The bank is not liable to pay any interest or compensation to him. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the bank. With the above contentions, the first opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint.
- The contention of the second opposite party is that the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant retained the policy documents and did not raise any objection towards the policy during the ‘free look period’ and thereby the complainant had agreed to the policy and the terms and conditions. The proposal form was signed by the complainant voluntarily and it was on the basis of the proposal form that the policy was issued. The second opposite party has refunded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant on 26/09/2018 by bank transfer. The complainant has approached the Commission with unclean hands and by twisting facts. The complainant had paid only the premium for the first year and thereafter failed to pay the premium due and hence the policy was terminated. Despite several reminders, renewal premium was not paid. The complainant has received the lapse intimation and termination intimation in respect of the policy. The policy had been acquired by the complainant voluntarily which was issued to him on the basis of the proposal form voluntarily signed by him. However, Rs. 1,00,000/- was transferred to his account on 26/09/2018 in full and final settlement of all the obligations of the second opposite party. The claim for interest is not allowable. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the second opposite party. None of the reliefs is allowable. It is, therefore, prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are:
- Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
- Reliefs and costs.
- Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 on the side of the complainant. No document was marked on his side. No oral evidence was let in by the opposite party. Ext B1 was marked on the side of the second opposite party.
- Heard.
- Point No.1: The complainant has approached this Commission with a grievance that the first opposite party has retained Rs. 1,00,000/- in deposit from the housing loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- sanctioned to him and transferred it to the second opposite party as insurance premium without his consent and knowledge and that the said amount was released to him only on 26/09/2018. The complainant is claiming interest for the said amount and also compensation of Rs 1,00,000/- from the opposite parties.
- In order to substantiate his case, the complainant has got himself examined as PW1, who has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. In the cross examination, PW1 has admitted that he is aware of the fact that the first premium for the policy was remitted by way of cheque drawn by him on the joint account in the name of himself and his wife maintained in the first opposite party bank. Further, PW1 has admitted his signature in Ext B1 copy of the proposal form. He has also admitted that the renewal premium was not remitted by him. The receipt of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 26/09/2018 is also admitted by PW1. PW1 has further admitted that all those dealings were done by his wife and Power of attorney holder, who knows the things better.
- The case advanced by the opposite parties is that the complainant had applied for and availed wealth insurance policy of the second opposite party on 15/1/2010 for Rs. 5,00,000/- with yearly premium of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable for 3 years and the policy term was 10 years. The first premium was paid by him by way of cheque issued from the joint account of the complainant and his wife maintained in the first opposite party bank. The renewal premiums were not paid and hence the policy was terminated by the second opposite party. However, the first premium amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was refunded to him on 26/9/2018. The opposite parties did not adduce any oral evidence. The copy of the proposal form is marked as Ext B1.
- At the very outset, it may be noted that the complainant has approached this Commission with unclean hands suppressing material facts. The factum of applying for and availing the wealth assurance policy of the second opposite party is suppressed by the complainant. There is no whisper either in the complaint or in the proof affidavit about these matters. However, at the time of cross examination, PW1 has admitted that he had applied for the policy and identified his signature in Ext B1. It is also admitted by him that the first premium was paid by him by way of cheque. Therefore, the case of the complainant that the insurance policy was taken and the premium amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was transferred by the first opposite party to the second opposite party without his knowledge and consent cannot be believed for a moment. Equally, the case of the complainant that he came to know about the policy only in 2013 cannot be believed at all. Likewise, the allegation against the bank that out of the housing loan amount, only Rs. 9,00,000/- was released to him and Rs.1,00,000/- was kept in deposit is nothing but false. It is also crucial to note that the complainant had availed insurance coverage till the termination of the policy for failure to remit the renewal premium.
- By signing Ext B1 proposal form and sending the first premium of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of cheque to the insurance company, the complainant cannot now be heard to say that he was not aware of the insurance policy and that the bank had illegally retained Rs. 1,00,000/- in deposit and transferred to the second opposite party without his knowledge and consent. It appears that the complainant is feigning ignorance of what had actually transpired. Moreover, all the dealings were done and managed by the power of attorney holder, who is none other than his wife. According to PW1, it is his wife who knows the things better. So she is the most competent person to say what had actually transpired. But she was not examined as a witness before this Commission.
- To sum up, we hold that there is no proof of any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and consequently the complaint must fail.
- Point No.2: In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not entitled to claim and get any relief as prayed for.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.However, no order as to costs. Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 14th day of December, 2023. Date of Filing: 26.10.2018 Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant : Ni. Exhibits for the Opposite Party Ext B1 - Copy of the proposal form. Witnesses for the Complainant PW1 - Sakir Hussain, (Complainant) Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER True Copy, Sd/- Assistant Registrar. | |
