Haryana

Kaithal

338/19

Veena - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Vinay Verma

20 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KAITHAL.

                                                     Complaint Case No.338/2019.

                                                     Date of institution: 10.10.2019.

                                                     Date of decision:20.12.2022.

1. Veena wd/o Sh. Nand Kishor s/o Sh. Kishan Chand r/o Ward No.10, Partap Gate, 918, Kaithal.
2. Nitesh Arora s/o Sh. Nand Kishor r/o Ward No.10, Partap Gate, 918, Kaithal.
3. Juhi Alagh w/o Sh. Dhiraj Alagh d/o Sh. Nand Kishor r/o Ward No.10, Partap Gate, 918, Kaithal.

                                                                        …Complainants.

                        Versus

1. HDFC Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited Registered Office Ramon House, H T Parekh Margh, 169, Backbay Reclamation, Church Gate, Mumbai.
2. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, Registered Office Ist Floor 165-166, Backbay Reclamation, H.T.Paraekh Marg, Church Gate, Mumbai.
3. HDFC Housing Development Finance Corporation Limited, Branch Office at Kaithal through its Branch Manager.

….Respondents.

        Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act

CORAM:     DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT.

                SMT. SUMAN RANA, MEMBER.

                SH. RAJBIR SINGH, MEMBER.

       

Present:     Sh. Vinay Verma, Advocate, for the complainants.   

                Sh. Ajay Dua, Advocate for the respondents.No.1 & 3.

                Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the respondent No.2.

               

ORDER

DR. NEELIMA SHANGLA, PRESIDENT

        Veena and others-Complainants have filed this complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondents.

                In nutshell, the facts of present case are that one Nand Kishor was the husband of complainant and father of complainants No.2 & 3 and he died on 06.06.2019.  After his death, the complainants have inherited the estate of the above-said Sh. Nand Kishor.  It is alleged that the above-said Sh. Nand Kishor alongwith his real brother namely Sh. Ramesh Kumar approached the officials of respondent No.3 at Kaithal in the year 2016 for obtaining house loan for an amount of Rs.30 lacs.  In fact, Sh.Nand Kishor and his brother Sh. Ramesh Kumar had purchased two plots vide two separate registered sale deeds adjoining to each other and wanted to raise the construction of a single joint house.  On the advice of respondent No.3, they agreed to take loan of Rs.15 each and completed all the formalities.  The respondents No.1 & 3 vide their two letters of even date dt. 11.10.2016 accepted the proposal and agreed to issue loan of Rs.15 lacs each to Sh. Nand Kishor and Sh. Ramesh Kumar.  It is further alleged that vide letters dt. 11.10.2016 the respondents No.1 & 3 have imposed certain conditions and the approval of the loan was subject to the fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in the offer letter.  One of the most important condition of the above-said letter was that the loan was required to get secured through insurance.  It is further alleged that the above-said Sh. Nand Kishor and Sh. Ramesh Kumar were badly in the need of loan, therefore, succumbed to the pressure and further agreed to the condition put forward by the respondent No.3 as per which the respondent No.3 has undertook to insured both the loans from respondent No.2 at his own.  It is further alleged from the date of taking the above-said loan in the year 2016, Sh. Nand Kishor and Sh. Ramesh Kumar were regularly making the payment of insurance premium amount.  Sh. Nand Kishor died on 06.06.2019.  After his death, the legal heirs of Sh. Nand Kishor requested the respondents to set off the remaining loan amount and to issue no dues certificate but the respondents have refused to do so.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of respondents and prayed for acceptance of complaint.     

2.            Upon notice, the respondents appeared before this Commission.  Respondents No.1 & 3 contested the complaint by filing their joint written statement raising preliminary objections that the respondents No.1 & 2 are independent entities in law having no control over the affairs and business operations of each other.  The liability to repay the loan is independent of the insurance contract, if any, between the complainant and the respondent No.2.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of respondents.  On merits, it is stated that on the verbal request of Sh. Nand Kishor deceased, husband of complainant, who did not want to get insurance cover as it was costing him premium of more than Rs.1,00,000/-, the condition of insurance was waived off by the answering respondents.  The other objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

3.             Respondent No.2 filed the written statement raising preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering respondent as the complainant has failed to produce even a single document to prove the fact that, as alleged Sh. Nand Kishor was insured with the answering respondent.  The complainant has failed to prove the contention raised by her and thus, the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering respondent.  Moreover, without prejudice to the above-mentioned contention, it is submitted that, as per the averment made by the respondent No.1 under para No.6 of merits in reply, wherein it is mentioned that “However, it is pertinent to mention here that on the verbal request of Sh. Nand Kishor deceased, husband of complainant, who did not want to get insurance cover as it was costing him premium of more than Rs.1,00,000/-, the condition of insurance was waived off, which establishes the fact that Sh. Nand Kishor had not taken the insurance cover regarding his loan and hence, no protection was available to him, thus no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of answering respondent.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint

4.             To prove his case, the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-C1 to Annexure-C23 and thereafter, closed the evidence.

5.             On the other hand, the respondents No.1 & 3 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A alongwith documents Annexure-R1 to Annexure-R4 and respondent No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and thereafter, closed the evidence.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Sh. Vinay Verma, Adv. for the complainants has argued that in Annexure-R2, both the brothers namely Ramesh Kumar and Nand Kishor have signed.  In Annexure-R3 also, there are signatures as-well-as names of both the brothers namely Ramesh Kumar and Nand Kishor.  It has been further argued that both the brothers have taken loan of Rs.15 lacs each and now-a-days each and every long term loan is insured by the bank in order to secure the bank and in case of death of the loanee, the loan is liable to be set-off.  It has been further argued that in the present case, Nand Kishor and Ramesh Kumar had been jointly insured from HDFC ERGO General Insurance i.e. respondent No.2 and in case of happening of any uncertainty, the loan amount will be covered under their “Home Suraksha Plan”.  It has been further argued that from the date of taking the above-said loan in the year 2016, Sh. Nand Kishor and Ramesh Kumar were regularly making the payment of insurance premium amount.  It has been further argued that Sh. Nand Kishor died on 06.06.2019 and after the death of loanee Sh. Nand Kishor, the legal heirs of Sh. Nand Kishor i.e. complainants No.1 to 3 requested the respondents to set-off the remaining loan amount on their part and to issue the no dues certificate but the respondents refused to do so.

8.             Sh. Sudeep Malik, Adv. for the insurance company-respondent No.2 has vehemently argued that there is not a single document to prove the fact that Sh. Nand Kishor was insured with the insurance company-respondent No.2.     

9.             Sh. Vinay Verma, Adv. for the complainants has brought to the notice of this court that on loan agreement for insurance premium funding, this amount is Rs.84,020/- payable to HDFC Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.-respondent No.3.  This amount has been given by HDFC Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.-respondent No.2.  In the column of borrower, both the names of Mr. Ramesh Kumar and Mr. Nand Kishor have been written which have been accepted by Mr. Munish Kansal, Branch Manager.  It is stated to be loan for giving the premium for insurance to the joint loan of Rs.30 lacs.  The insurance premium of Rs.927/- as monthly installment have been paid as per statement of account for the period 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2019 vide loan account No.622555684 in HDFC Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd.  The amount of Rs.84,020/- has been paid by HDFC Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. directly to the insurance company.  Nand Kishor has died.  The said amount of Rs.84,020/- has been paid by both Ramesh Kumar and Nand Kishor jointly.  This loan amount is given from loan account No.622555684.

10.            Thus, as a sequel of our aforesaid discussion, respondents are directed to set off the remaining loan amount of Nand Kishor on the part of complainants.  Hence, the present complaint is accepted accordingly with cost to the tune of Rs.11,000/- which shall be paid by the respondent No.2-insurance company to the complainant. 

11.            In default of compliance of this order, proceedings against respondents shall be initiated under Section 72 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as non-compliance of court order shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one month, but which may extend to three years, or with fine, which shall not be less than twenty five thousand rupees, but which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.  A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:20.12.2022.  

                                                                (Dr. Neelima Shangla)

                                                                President.

 

       

 

 

(Rajbir Singh),            (Suman Rana),          

Member.                            Member.

 

Typed by: Sanjay Kumar, S.G.