­BEFORE THE  DIST. CONSUMERS DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM;  DHARWAD.

DATE: 22^nd January 2016        

PRESENT:

1) Shri B.H.Shreeharsha       : President

2) Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi             : Member 

Complaint No.:  223/2015 

Complainant/s:       Smt. Shekanbi w/o. Aminuddin Bangalori,  Age: about 46 years, Occ: Household work, R/o. House No.107, Kulkani Hakkal, Hubballi 580020.

(By Sri.M.A.Shivalli, Adv.)

v/s

Respondent/s:  1)    Fullerton India Credit Co. Ltd.,  Katria Trade Centre, First Floor, F-3&4, Koppikar Road, Hubballi 580020.

(By Sri.S.N.Chandrashekhar, Adv.)

2)     ICICI Prudential Life Insurance, Eureka Junction, T.B.Road, Hubballi.

(By Sri.G.M.Kansogi, Adv.)

O R D E R

By: Shri. B.H.Shreeharsha : President.

1.     The complainant has filed this complaint claiming for a direction to the respondents to pay Rs.50,000/- the amount under the policy, to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages and to order for cost of the proceedings and to grant such other reliefs.

Brief facts of the case are as under:

2.     The case of the complainant is that, the complainant’s deceased husband had availed loan from respondent.1 of sum of Rs.52,500/- on 11.01.2013 under loan account no.012925400003560 with EMI of Rs.2782/-. The loanee had also insured for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with the respondent.2 under application reference no.13195200 dt.07.01.2013 covering the insurance in the event of natural death of the loanee and paid Rs.916/- premium covering the risk for a period of 36 months. After payment of first initial installment loanee died on 11.03.2013. The complainant being legal heir of deceased loanee after death of her husband visited the office of respondent.1 and submit application along with all necessary documents for claim amount under the policy. Respondent.1 assured they will forward the application to their Mumbai office, but no response from the respondent.1 thereafter. Even the respondent.2 also refused to adhere to the requests. Inspite of repeated requests and approaches the respondents did not settle the claim. Hence the complainant on 12.06.2015 issued legal notice to settle the claim within 15 days. Despite of service of notice the respondents did not complied which amounts to deficiency in service. Hence the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought.

3.     In response to the notice issued from this Forum the respondents appeared. Respondent.1 filed detailed written version. While respondent.2 sought for furnish policy details to file written version from the complainant, but either complainant or respondent.1 did not furnish any details with regard to the insurance policy obtained by complainant from respondent.2 through respondent.1. Even then at last the respondent.2 admits written version.

4.     Respondent.1 admits written version taking contention that the very complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and also denied the deficiency in service alleging the very complaint is frivolous one and prays for dismissal of the complaint. While the respondent admits avail of the loan but, denied respondent.1 obtained signature on insurance policy from the loanee to an amount of Rs.50,000/-. Further the respondent admits the death of the loanee but denied the repayment of the loan on installment as agreed. While respondent admits approach of the complainant and enquired with respondent with regard to loan transaction and also the fact complainant had been appointed as nominee to the loan transaction. Further respondent denies the submission of claim with all necessary documents to the respondents. Further the respondent admits the issuance of the notice and suitable reply by the respondent. While denied non payment of the insurance amount by the respondent is not deficiency in service by revealing the facts of the loan transaction & also with regard to the policy covering the risk of repayment in the event of death of the loanee during the period of the existence of the loan subject to terms and conditions by the respondent.2 company. Further the respondent admits respondent.1 is tie up with the ICICI Prudential Life insurance co., for their advances & binding of the insurance companies. Further the respondent denies the liability and also payment of compensation towards mental agony and cost of the proceedings as claimed by the complainant and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

5.     The respondent.2 admits detailed written version taking contention that the answering respondent is not a necessary party as there is no contract in between the complainant and respondent. Further the answering respondent also denied the issuance policy and coverage of the risk as alleged and contended by the complainant in the complaint. While the respondent admits issuance of legal notice on 12.06.2015 and the same was replied suitably through reply letter dt.26.06.2015 requesting to furnish the details of the policy. Further the respondent reveals the transaction and terms and conditions in detail by quoting citations and prays for dismissal of the complaint as there is no relationship of insured and insurer in between the complainant and respondents with exemplary cost.

6.     On the said pleadings the following points have arisen for consideration:

1. Whether complainant has proved that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondents ?
2. Whether complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed ?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled ?

The complainant and respondent 1 admits evidence affidavit. While respondent 2 not filed evidence affidavit, relied on documents.  Heard. Perused the records.

Finding on points is as under.

1. Affirmatively   
2. Accordingly  
3. As per order

R E A S O N S

P O I N T S 1 & 2

 7.    On going through the pleadings & evidence coupled with documents of both the parties it is evident that there is no dispute with regard to the fact,  that the complainant’s husband had availed loan with the respondent 1 and he died keeping loan amount in due.

8.     Now the question to be determined is, whether the deceased had insured under the policy issued by respondent 2, non settlement of the policy amount amounts to a deficiency in service, if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled.

9.     Since the facts have been revealed in detail which requires no repetition.

10.   At the outset before proceeding to decide the issues on record it has to be determined as contention taken by the respondent whether the complaint as brought is barred by limitation and complaint is maintainable.

11.   While filing the complaint complainant has also filed I.A.1 U/s.24(A) of CP Act to condone the delay if any in filing the complaint.

12.   On going through the pleadings it is the grievance of the complainant that after death of her husband she approached respondent.1 and filed application along with all necessary documents claiming to settle the claim. During that time respondent.1 assured they will forward the same to their Bombay office. Thereby the complainant waited all along but not settled. Thereafter left with no other option by issuing legal notice the complainant filed the instant complaint praying for the relief as sought along with the I.A.1 U/s.24(A). The complainant except averring she has submitted claim application along with all necessary documents to the respondent.1 the complainant did not produced any documents to show she has filed claim to respondent.1. However the respondent.1 in the pleadings admits after the death of the loanee the complainant had approached and enquired with the respondent 1 with regard to the loan transaction. Under those circumstances it is evident that the complainant is all along making attempts in obtaining her claim but, respondent did not settle the claim so far. Under those circumstances the cause of action continues till the payments or settlement of the claim. Hence the present complaint is not barred by the limitation and the present complaint is maintainable and this Forum has got jurisdiction to adjudicate the same. Accordingly by allowing I.A.1 held, complaint is maintainable on the point of limitation.

13.   The very contention of the complainant is that as per loan account schedule Ex.C4 in respect of loan agreement Ex.C6 the respondent.1 had collected 2 premiums under group life insurance premium separately Rs.916 + 987/- as shown in the deduction column of Ex.C4. By this it is evident that respondent.1 accepted the premium from the loanee at the time of processing the loan itself. But there is no details either in Ex.C6 or C4 the premium is received towards which insurer. Though complainant did not averred any facts either in the pleadings or evidence with regard to acceptance of two premiums from the respondent.1 while and at the time of argument LC for complainant admits the complainant had received the claim amount with regard to the premium paid to ICICI Lombard General insurance policy under reference 13196200 as claimed in the complaint towards the premium of Rs.987/- i.e. under Exhibit. C3. Under Exhibit. C3 policy number is clearly mentioned and is 4005/M/65304640/00/000. But under the said Exhibit. C3 there are 2 risk coverages, one, personal accident under ICICI Lombard General insurance co. Ltd., risk amount Rs.1 lakh, premium is Rs.987/- the same is received. While 2^nd risk life cover under ICICI Prudential  Life insurance, risk coverage of Rs.50,000/- with premium Rs.916/- is not received by the complainant. The 2^nd risk is with the respondent.2. but respondent.2 submits, no premium is received and they have not issued any policy. The respondent.1 totally denied with regard to acceptance of the premium and coverage of the policy for their loan availed by the deceased husband of the complainant. Respondent.1 baldly admits the written version, but as discussed supra the respondent.1 had received 2 premiums as discussed supra.

14.   With regard to the above ambiguity factors either complainant counsel nor respondents counsel did not made it clear and assist the Forum properly. Under those circumstances this Forum to reach just decision on merits suemoto issue notice to the respondent.1 Manager as per Exhibit. Dcrf -1(a) and the same was served to the respondent.1 Manager as per Ex.Dcrf -1(b). Despite service of the notice the Manager of respondent.1 either personally or through his counsel did not appeared and explained and cleared the ambiguity in question. The LC for complainant relying on Exhibit. C3 & C4 insist to allow the complaint by relying on the citations 2013 (2) CPR 48 Kerala; 2012 (3) CPR 65 Rajasthan; 2013 (3) CPR 476 NC; 2014 (2) CPR 111 NC; 2012 (2) CPR 55 West Bengal; 2012 (2) CPR 220; 2014 (1) CPR 138 NC. Under those circumstances considering the acceptance of premium by the respondent.1 as per Ex.C4 the respondent.1 is personally liable to pay the insurance amount of Rs.50,000/- as per Ex.C3 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan and to set of that amount to the loan due amount as per the terms and conditions of the loan with interest @ 9% from the month of April 2013 till date of set of to be given by the respondent.1 to the loan account due by the deceased and if any amount remained in excess after set off given to the loan amount to refund the same to the complainant, as such the complainant has established her case of deficiency in service by the respondent.1. Since the respondent 1 did not disclose any facts with regard to, to whom the premium is paid and failure to produce the premium was paid to the respondent.2 and when the respondent.2 specifically denied the receipt of the premium and issuance of the policy and coverage of the risk the liability against the respondent.2 is dismissed. Hence the complainant established her case of deficiency in service against respondent no.1. Accordingly the complainant is entitled for reliefs.

15.  In view of the above discussions we have arrived and proceed to held issue.1 and 2 in affirmatively and accordingly .

16.   Point.3: In view of the finding on points 1 and 2 proceeded to pass the following 

O R D E R

        Complaint is partly allowed against respondent 1. While the complaint against respondent 2 is dismissed. The respondent.1 is directed to pay the insured amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant under the premium amount of Rs.916/- paid in accordance with the terms and conditions of the loan and to adjust the said amount by adding interest @9% P.A. on the said assured amount of Rs.50,000/- from the month of April 2013 till set of to be given and remaining amount shall be  paid to the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order  along with Rs.2,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards cost of the proceedings.

(Dictated to steno, transcribed by him and edited by us and pronounced in the open Forum on this day on 22^nd day of January 2016)

(Smt.M.Vijayalaxmi)                                      (Sri.B.H.Shreeharsha)

Member                                                           President

Dist.Consumer Forum                                    Dist.Consumer Forum

MSR