Chandigarh

StateCommission

RP/22/2024

INDIABULLS HOUSING FINANCE LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GEETA RANI - Opp.Party(s)

UJWAL ANAND

29 May 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T. CHANDIGARH

[ADDITIONAL BENCH]

===========

Revision Petition No.	:	RP/22/2024
Date  of  Institution	:	02/04/2024
Date   of   Decision	:	29/05/2024

 

 

 

 

 

Indiabulls Housing Finance Limited, having Branch Office at SCO 477-478, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh - 160022.

…… Petitioner

 

V E R S U S

 

Geeta Rani widow of Late Sh.Sushil Kumar, Resident of House No. 1020-A, Preet Colony, Lohgarh, Zirakpur, Mohali (Punjab) – 140603.

 

…… Respondent

 

BEFORE:   MRS. PADMA PANDEY       PRESIDING MEMBER

          PREETINDER SINGH        MEMBER

 

PRESENT

:

Sh. Ujwal Anand, Advocate for the Revision Petitioner. Sh. Kapil Gupta, Advocate for the Respondent.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

 

1.     Challenge in the present Revision Petition is to the order dated 01.02.2024 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as the “Ld. District Commission”) in Misc. Application dated 13.09.2022 in CC/673/2022, whereby it disposed of the said application filed by the Respondent/ Complainant for restraining the Petitioner/Opposite Party No.1 for charging the monthly instalment of loan from Respondent/ Complainant during the pendency of the case, by passing the following order:-  

 

“………So in view of the above mentioned allegations it prima facia seems that official of OP No.1 has told the Complainant and Sh. Sushil Kumar (deceased) that it is mandatory to take insurance before taking the loan amount. Hence they have imposed a pre-condition before issuing the loan to Mr. Sushil Kumar (Deceased) which amount to unfair trade practice in view of the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as official of OP No.1 violated the provision of law.

 

In view of this observation application of the Complainant for restraining the OP No.1 from deducting the EMIs is allowed till further order. Accordingly, Misc. Application stands disposed off.”

 

2.     The core question that falls for consideration is as to whether the Ld. District Commission has rightly passed the order impugned before us. 

 

3.     Having bestowed our anxious consideration to the matter, we are of the opinion that in the light of the material on record, answer to the question posed has to be in negative.

 

4.     We have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully perused the record with their able assistance.

 

5.     The backdrop of the case is that the husband of the Respondent namely, Late Sushil Kumar along with the Respondent (co-applicant) approached the Petitioner on 01.06.2017 for the facility of Home Loan for purchase of a house i.e. House No. 1020-A, Preet Colony Lohgarh, Zirakpur, Mohali (Punjab). On 09.06.2017, they were sanctioned a loan amount to the tune of ₹20,80,000/- (including insurance premium). Consequently, the husband of the Respondent along with the Respondent entered into loan agreement dated 16.06.2017. As the ill luck would have it, the husband of the Respondent passed away on 06.12.2021. After the sudden demise of her husband, the Respondent/Complainant approached the Insurance Company for the claim, which stood rejected. Upon the rejection of the insurance claim, the Respondent/Complainant preferred Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission arraying Petitioner as well as the Insurance Company as Opposite Parties therein. Along with the said Complaint a misc. application was also filed and in that application the order dated 01.02.2024, which is impugned before us, as mentioned above, was passed.

 

6.     Record transpires that pursuant to notice, Petitioner appeared and filed written version and reply to the misc. application on 23.11.2022. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the application for interim directions is not maintainable qua the Petitioner as the insurance policy was executed between the late husband of the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2, wherein the Petitioner has no role to play as it acted only as an intermediary, despite that the Ld. District Commission passed the impugned order brushing aside the entire material evidence placed before it. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on Request & Disbursal letter dated 16.06.2017 executed by the Respondent requesting the Petitioner to disburse the loan amount as per the insurance plan agreed by them. As against it, Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Petitioner has done the insurance policy through the insurance company (Opposite Party No.2) as a pre-condition before disbursing the loan amount and has charged a premium amount of ₹80,000/- towards insurance policy. It has been contended that the order passed by the Ld. District Commission is quite just & right and does not call for any interference.

 

7.     We have perused the loan sanction letter available at Annexure C-2 (at page 23 of the paper-book of the Ld. District Commission) and are of the concerted opinion that the Petitioner has never made it as a mandatory condition to get the insurance policy from the Opposite Party No.2 rather, it was optional for the borrowers to avail the insurance cover from the company depending upon their choice. Here, it would be apposite to refer to Condition No. 9 of the Sanction letter ibid, which reads as thus: -

“9. Indiabulls arranges/facilitates services to those customers who are interested in obtaining life and non-life insurance cover from certain insurers. Insurance is a subject matter of solicitation and therefore, optional for the Borrowers to avail these insurance covers.”

 

From above, it is evident that it was optional for the borrowers to avail the insurance cover. Pertinently, the sanction letter containing the terms & conditions bears the signatures of the deceased husband as well as the Respondent who is the co-applicant. The Respondent is thus legitimately expected to repay the loan in the capacity of borrowers to the Petitioner, as the liability to pay the insurance claim to the policy holders is the sole responsibility of the insurance company. In this view of the matter, the Ld. District Commission erred in holding that the Petitioner imposed a pre-condition before issuing the loan to the deceased and that the Petitioner is not entitled to recover the EMI till further order. Thus, the Ld. District Commission has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission is liable to be set aside and the revision petition deserves to be allowed.

 

8.     In the result, the Revision Petition is allowed, and the decision dated 01.02.2024 of the Ld. District Commission, is set aside. However, in the peculiar set of circumstances, we expect that the Ld. District Commission will decide the complaint expeditiously within a period of two months from today.

 

9.     Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. District Commission-II, UT, Chandigarh on 03.06.2024, on which date, consumer complaint is already listed before it.

 

10.     Complete record of complaint file be sent back to the Ld. District Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh alongwith certified copy of this order, so as to reach there before the date fixed.

 

11.     The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off accordingly.

 

12.     Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

 

13.     The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

29^th May, 2024

              Sd/-

                                  (PADMA PANDEY)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”