Haryana

Ambala

CC/196/2021

Neena Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Charnjeet Singh Chahal

23 Jan 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

Complaint case no.	:	196 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	25.06.2021
Date of decision	:	23.01.2023

 

Neena Verma widow of late Shri Bittu Verma son of late Shri Kewal Krishan Verma, resident of H.No.66, Village Nanhera, P.O. Kuldeep Nagar, Ambala Cantt.

…..Complainant

 

VS

1. ICICI Bank Ltd. LIC Building, Jagadhri Road, Ambala Cantt. through its Branch Manager.
2. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company, Prem Nagar, Opposite Reliance Digital, Old Delhi Road, Ambala City through its Branch Manager.

….…. Opposite Parties

Before:      Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

          Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.           

 

Present:      Shri Charanjit Singh Chahal, Advocate, counsel for the

complainant.        

                   Shri Anil Kumar Kaushik, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1

                   Shri Sunil Kumar, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

Order:        Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

1.                The 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:-

i)                 To direct the OP No.2 to clear the loan amount of OP No.1 taken by deceased husband of complainant vide loan agreement No.LBAMB00002092171.

ii)                To pay Rs.5,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to act and conduct of the OPs.

iii)               To pay Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

Or

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deems fit.  

2.             Brief facts of this case are that on 23.05.2014, the husband of complainant late Shri Bittu Verma (now deceased) had obtained a loan for an amount of Rs.7,74,962/- against his property. Out of the said loan, a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- was disbursed to the husband of complainant and remaining amount of Rs.24,962/- were retained by the bank (OP No.1) for insurance of entire loan which covers accidental as well as ordinary death of borrower till the pendency of loan. Husband of complainant was repaying the loan in EMI, time to time. Unfortunately, on 23.4.2020, husband of complainant had died in a road side accident within the area of PS Ambala Cantt and in this regard a FIR No.193 dated 23.4.2020 under Sections 279, 304A IPC was registered in Police Station Ambala Cantt. Complainant has informed the OPs regarding death of her husband, requesting to adjust the future and pending loan taken by her husband but instead of adjustment of loan, the OPs demanding the outstanding amount of loan from the complainant. The said act of the OPs are totally wrong, unwarranted and illegal, as the OP No.2 is legally bound to pay pending and future loan EMIs of the loan taken by the husband of complainant.  Under compelling circumstances, the complainant got served a legal notice through her counsel on 21.01.2021 upon the OPs, requesting them to adjust the loan amount of Shri Bittu Vera, if there is any claim of loan of EMIs, then OP No.1 can directly claim from the OP No.2 of their own. The notice was duly received by the OPs but despite that OPs neither replied to the legal notice nor adjust the loan amount obtained by the husband of complainant from the OP No.1 insured with OP No.2. Complainant has suffered mental harassment, mental agony and financial loss due to the malafide, dishonest and fraudulent acts and conduct of the OPs and also by adopting unfair trade practice/deficiency in service. Finding no other alternative, the complainant has filed the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, the OPs appeared and OP No.1 filed its separate written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, locus standi, not come with clean hands and suppressed the material facts, locus standi, cause of action and bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party etc.  On merits, it has been stated that an amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was disbursed to the husband of complainant and remaining amount of Rs.24,962/- were retained by the bank i.e. OP No.1 for insurance of the entire loan which covers the accidental as well as ordinary death of the borrower till the pendency of loan. The OP No.1 had paid first premium of Rs.7000/- on 27.5.2014 which was funded by OP No.1 requesting OP No.2 for issuance of policy under loan protect-FP-mortgage plan on the life of Mr.Bittu Verma for the yearly premium of Rs.5262/-, based upon which the policy bearing No.18645768 was issued on 29.5.2014. It is denied that complainant approached OP No.1 and informed about the accidental death of borrower and requested to adjust the loan. Further Shri Bittu Verma, was not making the payment of loan EMIs regularly in time. Therefore, last policy premium was not released as the loan 90 DPD and the installments were not regular in 2017. It is submitted that total premium amounting to Rs.24,962/- was received by OP No.2 till 29.5.2018 i.e. four years only. However, premium payment term for the subject policy was 5 years. Therefore, last premium remained unpaid since 29.5.2018 till the demise of borrower. Due to above reason policy acquired was discontinued due to non-payment of renewal premium. Hence, prayed for dismissal of complaint with special costs.  
4.           OP No.2 filed its separate written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and filing of complaint on false, frivolous and baseless grounds. It is submitted that the death of DLA occurred after the policy acquired discontinued status, hence, the claim of the complainant could not be admitted as all benefits has ceased as per the terms and conditions due to non-payment of renewal premiums and the same fact was duly informed to the complainant vide letter dated 4.9.2020. On merits, it has been stated that on 28.5.2014, the company received duly filled and signed application form alongwith first premium deposit which was funded by ICICI Bank Ltd. requesting for issuance of policy under Loan Protect FP Mortgage plan on the life of Mr.Bittu Verma for a yearly premium of Rs.6997/-. Based on the information provided in the said application, company issued policy bearing No.18645768 on 29.5.2014 on the life of Bittu Verma. Since, the last premium remained unpaid since May 29, 2018 as per clause 2.3 premium discontinuance, the policy acquired discontinued status due to non-payment of renewal premium and hence the policy benefits under the subject policy had stopped at that point in time which is prior to death of the life assured. Accordingly, the company duly evaluated the claim and processed Rs.310.45 on 4.9.2020 through Direct Credit to ICICI Bank Ltd. Into ICICI Bank Account No.000405102556. The company has acted in accordance with the applicable policy terms and conditions and is not liable to make the further payment or repay the loan amount as alleged. Hence, prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.  
5.           Complainant tendered her affidavit as Annexure CA alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-3 and closed the evidence on behalf of the complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Arashdeep Kumar, Legal Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Ambala Cantt. as Annexure OP1/A alongwith documents as Annexure R7 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Shri Thejus Joseph, Senior Manager of ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited as Annexure OP2/A alongwith documents as Annexure R1 to R5 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2. 
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file.
7.           During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the complainant has stated that the husband of the complainant obtained a loan against property to the tune of Rs.7,74,962/- on 23.05.2014. Out of the above said loan amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was disbursed to the husband of complainant  and Rs.24,962/- was retained for insurance of entire loan which covers the accidental as well as ordinary death of the borrower till the pendency of loan. The learned counsel for the OP No.1 has argued that the husband of the complainant was not making the payment of loan EMIs regularly. Therefore, the last policy premium was not released as the loan installments were not regular in 2017 and the total premium amounting to Rs.24,962/- was received by OP No.2 till 29.5.2018 i.e. four years only. However, premium payment term for the subject policy was 5 years. Due to this reason policy acquired was discontinued due to non-payment of renewal premium. He prayed for dismissal of the complaint. The main point of the argument of the learned counsel for the OP No.2 is that the claim of the complainant could not be admitted as all benefits have ceased as per the terms and conditions due to non-payment of renewal premiums and the same fact was duly informed to the complainant vide letter dated 4.9.2020.
8.           It is an admitted fact that the DLA has obtained a loan against property from the OP No.1. It is also an admitted fact that DLA has also obtained and insurance policy from the OP No.2 and the borrower has died on 23.04.2020.
9.            The only moot question that falls for consideration in the present case is, as to whether, the OP No.2 is liable to adjust/pay the remaining loan amount to the OP No.1 instead of complainant.  From the perusal of written version filed by OP No.1, it is evident that complainant has paid the premium of insurance policy for five years of the entire loan amount. Therefore, the contention of the both the OPs that the complainant has paid premium of insurance policy for four years is not tenable.   Further the OPs have also failed to place on record any letter issued to the complainant intimating her to make the payment of insurance premium.
10.           It was the duty of OP No.1 to remit the premium of insurance policy for the last fifth year to the OP No.2 but bank the OP No.1 did not fulfill its obligation, therefore, the OP No.1 is liable to adjust the outstanding loan amount instead of OP No.2 and there is no fault of OP No.2 for making the payment of loan amount of the complainant and the complaint against it is liable to be dismissed.
11.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OP No.2 and allow the same against OP No.1 and direct it, in the following manner:-

(i) To clear the outstanding loan amount in question taken by the deceased husband of the complainant after deducting an amount of Rs.310.45 paid by the OP No.2.

(ii) To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

(iii) To pay Rs.2,000/-, as litigation expenses.

 

The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.                  

Announced:- 23.01.2023

 

(Vinod Kumar Sharma)		(Neena Sandhu)
Member		President