Haryana

Ambala

CC/111/2021

Yogesh Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Fullerton India Credit Co ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Darshan Kumar

16 Aug 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	111 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	24.02.2021
Date of decision	:	16.08.2024

Yogesh Verma aged about 30 years s/o Shri Madan Lal Verma, R/o H No.738, Sainik Vihar, Jandli, Municipal Ward no.10, Ambala City.

……. Complainant.

Versus

1. Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, Branch Office- First Floor, SCO No. 141-142, Sector-8C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh-160 008, through its Authorized Signatory;
2. Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Limited, SCO-350-351-352, First Floor, Sector-34A, Chandigarh-160 034, through its Authorized Signatory:
3. Shri Amit Verma-BSA Loan Department, Swasthi R, Associate, Near Civil Hospital, Ambala Cantt (Mb. No.70567-16422);

                                                                                   ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:          Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                       Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

           Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:        Ms. Rekha Verma, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

                     Shri Mohinder Bindal, Advocate, counsel for OP No.2.

                     None for OPs No.1 and 3.

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them :-

1. To waive off the outstanding building loan of mother of the complainant, under the loan account in question.
2. To pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. as compensation for mental agony, torture and physical harassment and inconvenience suffered by the complainant, from the date of death of loanee i.e 20.08.2020, till the date of payment.
3. To pay Rs.33,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.

 

2.            Brief facts of the case are that Smt. Santosh Verma w/o Shri Madan Lal Verma was mother of the complainant and his mother Smt. Santosh Verma is Principal Borrower of the building loan of Rs.24,00,000/-, which she had taken from  OP No.1 on 28.02.2020 through the  OP No.3, who told to the complainant and his mother-Smt.Santosh Verma, to be an authorized agent/employee of  OP No.1. OP No.1 after calculating the installments of repayment of loan, made the installments at the rate of Rs.33,554/- per month and opened the Loan Account of Smt. Santosh Verma bearing No. 191220910695803 having Customer ID: 2793996. Since the complainant is the owner and in possession of the Property bearing H.No.938, Sainik Vihar, Jandli, Municipal Ward No.10, Ambala City: and as such  OP No.1 induced the complainant and his wife Smt.Isha Verma to sign the loan documents as guarantor. At the time of granting the loan to Smt. Santosh Verma,  OP No.1 also sold Policy No. 1513729 of the  OP No.2 to the complainant and  OP No.1 disclosed to the complainant and Smt. Santosh Verma that the loan is covered under this policy and in case of critical illness and death of loanee i.e. Smt. Santosh Verma before ending the loan instalments, the complainant will not be liable for the return of the loan instalments and  OP No.1 will not recover the loan from the complainant after the death of Smt. Santosh Verma and the loan will become final. From the beginning, the mother of the complainant namely Smt. Santosh Verma had been repaying the loan instalments regularly at the rate of Rs.33,554/-  per month and she had paid 06 instalments. Thereafter, the loanee- Smt.Santosh Verma became seriously ill and had to remain under the constant treatment of Healing Touch Hospital, situated on Sultanpur Chowk, Near Dhulkot Barrier, Ambala-Chandigarh Road at Ambala District. The complainant has spent a very huge amount on the treatment and ultimately the mother of the complainant viz Smt.Santosh Verma died on 20.08.2020 as is evident from Death Certificate issued by the Competent Authority. As per the Policy No. 15137129 pertaining to the  OP No.2-Insurance Company Limited, which was got issued by  OP No.1; the loan instalments is liable to be waived off and the complainant, who has signed just as a guarantor is not liable for payment of instalment against the aforesaid loan. Accordingly the complainant approached  OP No.1 and disclosed all the facts and supplied copy of Death Certificate of Smt.Santosh Verma and requested to waive off her loan; at which initially  OP No.1 assured for proceeding in waiving off her loan; but after few days,  OP No.1 became adamant to recover the loan instalments from the complainant being guarantor, by taking undue advantage of mortgaging the property by the complainant against the said loan. Moreover,  OP No.1 started threatening the complainant to recover the amount of loan by adopting forcible and illegal means and the OPs turned down the genuine and legitimate requests of the complainant.   Consequently the complainant had to file a "suit for declaration to the effect that the Building Loan of Smt. Santosh Verma w/o Shri Madan Lal Verma pertaining to Loan Account No. 191220910695803 having Customer ID: 2793996 outstanding in the account of now deceased- Smt. Santosh Verma is liable to be waived off in the presence of Insurance Policy No. 15137129 given to the loanee by the  OP No.2 through  OP No.1; with a consequential relief of Permanent Injunction restraining  OP No.1 either by themselves or through their any of the agents, employees, yesmen, authorised persons or police from recovering the outstanding amount of aforesaid loan in the presence of Letter dated 20.10.2020 issued by  OP No.1 being the death of Smt. Santosh Verma-Original Loanee occurred on 20.08.2020, forcibly and illegally, in any manner, whatsoever, on the basis of oral and documentary evidence". This suit is still pending in the Learned Civil Court, Ambala. However,  OP No.1 is still threatening the complainant to recover the remaining loan amount with interest by adopting coercive and illegal means. Under the constrained circumstances, the complainant got the OPs issued Legal Notice dated 22.01.2021, which was posted on 23.01.2021, thereby calling all of them to waive off the Building Loan of mother of the complainant namely Smt.Santosh Verma but to no avail. Hence this complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable; this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint; the complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Commission and has not come to the court with clean hands; the complaint contains disputed questions and therefore cannot be decided under summary proceedings etc. On merits, it has been stated that the deceased Santosh Verma had availed the insurance policy from OP No.2 which covered death benefits for personal accident only. Passing or rejection of claim pertained to insurance company only and OP No.1 has no role in it. One civil suit is pending before the Civil Court therefore this consumer complaint is not maintainable. Rest of the averments were denied by the OP No.1 and prayer has been made to dismiss this complaint.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable; the complaint is without any cause of action; the complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Commission and has not come to the court with clean hands etc. On merits, it has been stated that the deceased Santosh Verma had availed the  insurance policy from OP No.2 which covered death benefits for personal accident only or it she had suffered permanent total/partial disablement during the policy period. From the perusal of record of  deceased insured, it was found that the insured had died due to old ailment and cardiopulmonary arrest and not due to any accidental injury and therefore the claim was not payable. Rest of the averments were denied by the OP No.2 and prayer has been made to dismiss this complaint with costs.
5.           Upon notice, OP No.3 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections to the effect that the complaint is not maintainable;  the complaint filed by the complainant is false and frivolous and is not maintainable; the complaint is without any cause of action; the complainant has suppressed true and material facts from this Commission and has not come to the court with clean hands; the complaint is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties; the complainant has violated terms and conditions agreed to between the complainant and OP No.3 etc. The averments made in the complaint were denied by the OP No.3 and prayer has been made to dismiss this complaint with heavy and special cost.
6. Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. Learned counsel for the OP No.2, tendered affidavit of Vinod Katna, Authorized Signatory of OP No.2-ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigarh, as Annexure OP-2/A alongwith documents as Annexure OP-2/1 to OP-2/2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the OP No.2. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the OPs No.1 & 3 failed to lead any evidence despite availing various opportunities, therefore, evidence of the OPs No.1 & 3 have been closed by the order of this Commission on 03.07.2024.
7.           On the day of arguments, none appeared on behalf of OPs No.1 and 3, to argue the matter. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and the learned counsel for the OP No.2 and have also carefully gone through the case file.
8.           Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that by not waiving off the housing loan amount, after death of the insured (loanee), despite the fact that the premises in question was insured under the policy in question, the OPs are deficient in providing service and adopted unfair trade practice.
9.           On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.2 while reiterating all the objections taken in the written version submitted that the deceased Santosh Verma had availed the insurance policy from OP No.2, which covered death benefits for personal accident or if she had suffered permanent total/partial disablement during the policy period. He further submitted that from the perusal of record of deceased insured, it was found that the insured had died due to old ailment and cardiopulmonary arrest and not due to any accidental injury and therefore the claim was not payable.
10.           It may be stated here that it is the own case of the complainant that a civil suit is pending in the Civil Court (Senior Division), Ambala, in respect of the dispute in question, which is pending for 22.08.2024. We have gone through the contents of this Civil Suit No.1503/2020 titled as Yogesh Verma Versus Fullerton India Credit Company Limited and others, Annexure OP2/2, which clearly establishes that a similar relief qua waiving off the outstanding loan amount, under the policy in question, qua the said housing loan, has been sought for by the complainant alongwith consequential relief of permanent injunction, against the same opposite parties, as has been sought by the complainant in the present consumer complaint. If that is so, we have no hesitation to hold that this Commission has no jurisdiction to decide this complaint, proceedings before which are summary in nature, and, especially, when civil court case is pending for adjudication on the same subject matter. This Commission did not vest with jurisdiction to decide the present complaint because two parallel remedies simultaneously in the matter cannot be permitted. Our these findings find support from the law laid down by the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Dr.Dinesh Vs. Swastic Builders and Ors. (2002) 1 CPJ 60 wherein it was held that when a civil suit is pending on the same subject matter, jurisdiction of consumer commission is barred, as jurisdiction of civil courts is more comprehensive.  Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble National Commission in Special Machines, Karnal v. Punjab National Bank & Ors., as reported in I (1991) CPJ 78 and also by the Hon’ble State Commission, Madhya Pradesh in Danish Grih Niram Sahakari Samiti Vs. Anurag Seth, (2006) 4 CPJ 393.
11.           For the reasons recorded above, this complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost, being not maintainable before this Commission. However, the complainant is at liberty to continue with the civil court proceedings, which are admittedly pending for adjudication, qua the dispute in question. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties concerned as per rules.  File be annexed and consigned to the record room.     

Announced:- 16.08.2024.

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)	(Ruby Sharma)	(Neena Sandhu)
Member	Member	President