Haryana

Karnal

CC/661/2021

Smt. Kamla Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

S.S. Moonak

02 Jul 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 661 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.30.11.2021

                                                        Date of Decision:02.07.2024

 

Smt. Kamla Devi, aged 65 years, wife of late Ravi Dutt son of late Shri Indraj, resident of V.P.O. Munak, District Karnal. (Aadhar no.854529356453).

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1. ICICI Bank Limited, Branch Assandh, District Karnal, through its Branch Manager.

 

2. The ICICI Lombard General Assurance Company Ltd., opposite Sector 12, opposite mini secretariat, Karnal through its Divisional Manager.

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.      

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr.  Suman Singh…..Member

 

 Argued by: Shri S.S. Moonak, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Amish Goel, counsel for the OP no.1.

                    Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for the OP no.2.

 

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that husband of complainant namely Ravi Dutt (since deceased) had taken loan from the OP no.1 amounting to Rs.5,06,468/- for purchasing of tractor in the month of March, 2019, vide loan account no.KFKNL00038650711. He was paying half yearly installment regularly of the loan amounting to Rs.76,332/- to the OP no.1. Out of the said loan amount a sum of Rs.3,05,328/- has already been paid to the OP no.1. The husband of the complainant died in a road side accident on 25.04.2021 in village Munak, District Karnal. The matter was reported to the local police and a case was registered with the police of Police Station Munak, District Karnal and DDR was recorded in this regard. The aforesaid loan amount was linked with the policy issued by the OP no.2, vide policy no.4005/M/TR/166709802/00/000 which covers the loan amount w.e.f. 08.03.2019 to 07.03.2024. The extra premium was paid for covering the aforesaid policy. After the death of Ravi Dutt,  the complainant alongwith her son Anil Kumar approached the office of OPs personally and submitted the claim form and all other relevant documents for waiving off the loan amount, however no response was given by the OPs. The matter was lingered upon unnecessarily without any reason. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 10.06.2021 but it also did not yield any result. On the other hand the OPs are threatening the complainant that they will take the possession of the tractor forcibly and illegally and further threatened the complainant that if she does not pay the balance installments then she will face the dire consequences and they will misuse the cheques/documents which are in their possession. In case, if they are not restrained from doing so, then the complainant would suffer an irreparable loss, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

 2.            On notice, OP no.1 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; cause of action; locus standi and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the customer Shri Ravi Dutt has availed a tractor loan bearing loan no.KFKNL00038650711 which was sanctioned and disbursed on 08.03.2019 for an amount of Rs.5,06,468/-for a tenure of 60 months. Mrs. Kamla Devi is the co-applicant in this loan and wife of the customer, Ravi Dutt. The mode of EMI is half yearly. Total number of EMIs are 10 for the tenure of 60 months. Breakup of the loan amount:

Amount disbursed to Dealer-Karnal Tractors		Rs.493426.05
Processing fee (including the SGST of Rs.501.4 and IGST of Rs.501.4	Rs.6573
Motor Secure	Rs.6468

 

As per the proposal form, the insured person name is Mr. Ravi Dutt Premium amount for the policy was Rs.6468/-. The policy period started from 08.03.2019 till 10.12.2023 and the proposal form was signed on 01.03.2019. As per statement of account the OP no.1 received payment for 4 EMIs and 2 EMIs are overdue for payment. The outstanding as on February 11, 2022 is Rs.3,95,741/-. The details of the insurance premium payment made to the Lombard on March 8, 2019 by ICICI Bank:

Payment Product Dese	Processing Date	Payee Name	Instrument Amount
Funds TRF	08.03.2019	ICICI Lombard Insu Prem CI	6468
Credit Account number	Current Status	Payment Ref. no.	UTR no.
000405007307	Paid	CMS1063228961	KFKNL00038650711 T3692862588RA VID UTT6468.

 

The loan was disbursed on 08.03.2019 for Rs.5,06,468/- in the name of Rvi Dutt and Kamla Devi where the asset make was New Holland 3630 with registration no.HR-40G-0723. The customer was paying his installments regularly till June, 2021 and has paid four installments. Ravi Dutt expired on April, 2021 and his family refused to pay further installments. Ravi Dutt expired due to natural death and was cremated in village itself. But when the family of the borrower came to know that the natural death is not compensated in any loan insurance, family concocted a new story and lodged a complaint at Munak Police Station. As per false DDR, the borrower expired in a road accident, but it is pertinent to mention here that neither any medical was done nor postmortem happened. There is no FIR regarding the roadside accident. Now the family has filed this false complaint in this Commission to get the account closed via insurance claim. As per Bank’s disbursal information, amount for issuance of policy has been paid to Lombard. There is no lapse in Bank’s process. It is further pleaded that OP has not received any claim request from the complainant and/or her son. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.2 filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that the present complaint is premature, as till date complainant has not intimated the OP regarding the death of Ravi Dutt and has not lodged any claim with the OP.  Claim form and other documents, which has to be duly filed by the complainant is still pending. Due to non-intimation of loss, no investigation has been conducted by the company. The OP after receiving the notice of present complaint has come to know regarding the death of Ravi Dutt. Prior to this complainant has not intimated to OP about the death of Ravi Dutt and no claim was lodged by complainant with OP. Delay on the part of the complainant to intimate the company, has prejudiced the investigation of company. This constitutes serious breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, which states that notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence of any loss and in the event of any claim. Failure of the complainant to immediately intimate the company is valid reason for repudiation of the claim of the complainant. The OP has been deprived of its valuable right to get the matter investigated immediately. It is further pleaded that no policy copy has been supplied to the OP by the complainant and in absence of the same, the factum of insurance is not proved. It is further pleaded that deceased was having no insurable interest in the vehicle in question at the time of alleged accident. In case the policy of insurance will be supplied to the OP even then the same is denied until and unless the same is verified/confirmed from the issuing office of OP, therefore, in the absence of the insurance particulars, no claim can be lodged against the OP and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, aadhar card of complainant Ex.C1, copy of RC Ex.C2, copy of policy schedule Ex.C3, copy of driving licence of Ravi Dutt Ex.C4, copy of DDR Ex.C5, copy of death certificate Ex.C6, copy of letter/loan account statement Ex.C7, copy of legal notice and postal receipts Ex.C8 and Ex.C9 and closed the evidence on 13.06.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Sunil Dutt, Branch Manager Ex.OP1/A, copy of statement of account Ex.OP1, copy of repayment schedule Ex.OP2, copy of DDR Ex.OP3, copy of death certificate Ex.OP4, copy of application form Ex.OP5, copy of credit facility application form Ex.OP6, copy of Unattested Deed of Hypothecation Ex.OP7, copy of Irrevocable Power of Attorney Ex.OP8, copy of standard terms and conditions of insurance policy Ex.OP9 and closed the evidence on 28.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Divyam Suri, Legal Manager Ex.RW1/A, copy of terms and conditions of the policy Ex.R1 and closed the evidence on 28.07.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that Ravi Dutt (since deceased) during his life time obtained a loan of Rs.5,06,468/- from the OP no.1 for purchasing of a tractor and the said loan was secured by purchasing a insurance policy and for this he paid the extra premium. On 25.04.2021, Ravi Dutt expired in a road side accident. DDR was lodged. Complainant informed the OPs about the death of her husband and lodged the death claim with the OPs and submitted all the required documents and also requested the OPs to release the benefits under the policy in question but the officials of the OPs did not pay any attention to the request of the complainant and denied the claim of complainant on the false and frivolous ground and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.1, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that Ravi Dutt expired due to natural reason but when his family came to know that the natural death is not compensated in any loan insurance, family concocted a false story and got lodged a false DDR. No post mortem was got conducted upon the dead body of the insured. There is no FIR regarding the roadside accident. He further argued that OP has not received any claim request from the complainant, thus the present complaint is premature and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.1.

11.           Learned counsel for the OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that the present complaint is premature, as till date complainant has not intimated the OP regarding the death of Ravi Dutt and has also not lodged any claim with the OP. Due to non-intimation, no investigation has been conducted by the company. The OP has been deprived of its valuable right to get the investigation immediately. Despite repeated requests of OPs, the complainant did not supply the requisite documents and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           Admittedly, life assured Ravi Dutt (since deceased) had obtained a loan of Rs.5,06,468/- from the OP no.1 and the said loan was secured by purchasing the policy covering death in accidental case.  It is also admitted that during the subsistence of insurance policy life assured had expired.

14.           The claim of the complainant has been denied by the OPs due to non-intimation and non-submission of claim from alongwith required documents with the OPs.

15.           The complainant has alleged that on 25.04.2021 insured Ravi Dutt expired in roadside accident. She submitted the claim alongwith relevant documents to the OPs for settlement of the death claim of insured Ravi Dutt. The onus to prove her case was relied upon the complainant but she has miserably failed to prove her case by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. There is nothing on the file to prove that after the death of Ravi Dutt, complainant has submitted the claim with the OPs. Complainant has placed on file only copy aadhar card of complainant Ex.C1, copy of RC Ex.C2, copy of policy schedule Ex.C3, copy of driving licence of Ravi Dutt Ex.C4, copy of DDR Ex.C5, copy of death certificate Ex.C6, copy of letter/loan account statement Ex.C7, copy of legal notice and postal receipts Ex.C8 and Ex.C9, except these documents there is nothing on file to prove that she has submitted the claim with the OPs.  

16.           Furthermore, if the complainant had submitted the claim with the OPs and supplied the required documents, they would have placed the copies of said documents and claim form on the file. Moreover, no date, month and year has been mentioned by the complainant on which submission of the claim was done with the OPs. Further, during the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that if the OPs feel that complainant has not submitted the claim form in that event, complainant is again ready to submit the claim form alongwith documents with the OPs. Thus, in view of the above, we are of the considered view that complainant has not submitted claim form alongwith the document with the OPs.  Hence, in view of the above, the present complaint is premature and not maintainable at this stage.

17.           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is disposed of with the liberty to the complainant to submit the claim form alongwith documents to the OPs and on receipt of the same, OPs are hereby directed to settle the claim of the complainant within 60 days, as per the terms and conditions of the policy. No order as to costs. This order shall be complied with accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 02.07.2024

                                                                     President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                          Member                     Member