Haryana

Karnal

319/2009

Reenu bhatia W/ Murli Bhatia - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

C.J. Wadhwa

27 Jul 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

 

                                                                 Complaint No.319 of 2009

                                                               Date of instt. 04.05.2009

                                                               Date of decision: 27.07.2016

 

1. Renu Bhatia widow of Sh. Murli Bhatia.

2. Dikshant Bhatia son of Shri Murli Bhatia,

3. Vimmy Bhatia d/o  Shri Murli Bhatia residents of House no.113, sector-13 extension Housing Board, Karnal.

                  

                                                                             ………….Complainants.     

                                                         Versus

 

1. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd., Sector-12, Karnal through its Branch Manager.

2. I.C.I.C.I. Bank Ltd., Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051 through its M.D.

                                         

                                                                            ………..Opposite Parties.

 

                   Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.          

 

Before                   Sh.K.C.Sharma……. President.

                   Sh. Anil Sharma……….Member.

                  

 

 Present       Shri C.J.Wahdwa Advocate for complainants.

                   Shri D.P. Kharb Advocate for opposite parties

 

ORDER:                    

 

                        This complaint has been filed by the complainants under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the averments that husband of complainant no.1 and father of complainants no.2 and 3 Shri Murli Bhatia (since deceased) applied for loan against property to the opposite parties. Loan of Rs.16 lacs was sanctioned in his favour, vide sanction letter dated 27.10.2005. Personal accident insurance cover policy was also issued by the opposite parties equivalent to the principal loan amount and the same was mentioned in the sanction letter. However, the opposite party no.1 disbursed a sum of Rs.12,35,000/- only. The remaining amount was not disbursed inspite of repeated requests and demands by Shri Murli Bhatia, without any sufficient cause. Therefore, on 17.5.2007 Shri Murli Bhatia wrote a letter to opposite party no.1 wherein it was submitted that he had requested the bank verbally for disbursement of full sanctioned amount, but no consideration was given to his case, therefore, the amount of Rs.12,35,000/- be considered as final sanctioned loan amount at that stage and he did not want to get the remaining amount. He also requested that EMI’s on the said amount of Rs.12,35,000/- be fixed. Lateron, Shri Murli Bhatia died in a road side accident on 28.6.2007 and First Information Report regarding the said accident was registered. Post Mortem on the dead body was also got conducted. Thereafter, the complainants lodged personal accident death claim with the opposite party as per sanction letter and personal accident cover policy issued by the opposite parties. Complainant no.1 sent a letter to the opposite party no.1 on 15.01.2008 as reminder for payment of the insurance claim, but no reply was given by the opposite party no.1. Therefore, complainant no.1 again sent letter dated 25.3.2008 and thereafter opposite parties rejected the claim vide letter dated 3.4.2008 on a flimsy ground that accidental benefit could only be processed in fully disbursed cases. The action of the opposite parties was arbitrary and unfair trade practice, which caused the complainants mental pain, agony and harassment, apart from financial loss.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who put into appearance and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainants. Objections have been raised that the complaint is not legally maintainable; that the complaint is an abuse of process of law; that the complainants have not approached this forum with clean hands; that the complainants have no cause of action to file the complaint and that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the complaint.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the loan in question was meant for purchase of plot and construction. As no construction was made by Shri Murli Bhatia, the remaining loan amount was not disbursed to him. He was verbally asked a number of times to complete the formalities i.e. to submit the Permission to mortgage and conveyance deed with the bank, but he did not produce those documents and as such no fault can be attributed on the part of the opposite parties. Free accidental insurance policy cover was applicable on full disbursal of the loan, but full sanctioned loan was not disbursed to Shri Murli Bhatia, therefore, complainants are not entitled for accidental benefits. It has further been pleaded that the letter dated 17.5.2007 written by Shri Murli Bhatia was received by the Bank, but the same was not replied. The said letter was sent to Home Division for further progress, but could not be proceeded with as Shri Murli Bhatia had not submitted the permission to mortgage and title deed with the bank. Therefore, complainants cannot take advantage of the said letter. The claim of the complainants was rightly and legally rejected, vide letter dated 3.4.2008. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainants, affidavit of Renu Bhatia EX.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C14 has been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Isha Kochar Ex.O1 and documents Ex.O2 to Ex.O7 have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                Shri Murli Bhatia applied for loan against property to the opposite parties and loan of Rs.16 lacs was sanctioned, vide letter dated 27.10.2005. Personal accident insurance cover policy was also issued by the opposite party and that fact was mentioned in the sanction letter. However, loan of Rs.12,35,000/- was only disbursed and the remaining amount was not disbursed. On 17.5.2007 Shri Murli Bhatia wrote a letter to opposite party no.1 submitting that he had requested the bank verbally for disbursement of aforesanctioned amount, but his case was not considered, therefore, the amount of Rs.12,35,000/- be considered as final sanctioned loan amount  and he did not want to get the remaining amount.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainants vehemently argued that while sanctioning loan of Rs.16 lacs the opposite parties also issued personal accident insurance cover equivalent to the principal amount and such fact was mentioned in the sanction letter. However, the opposite parties disbursed only an amount of Rs.12,35,000/-and the remaining amount was not disbursed despite repeated requests of Shri Murli Bhatia for no fault on his part. Therefore, Shri Murli Bhatia wrote latter dated 17.5.2007, the copy of which is Ex.C4 requesting the opposite parties to finally make Rs.12,35,000/- as final sanctioned loan and he did not want rest of the amount. He also requested that EMI’s on the said amount may be started as soon as possible. The said letter was not replied by the opposite parties. Therefore, it is to be considered that the opposite parties had no objection to the contents of the said letter for making Rs.12,35,000/- as final sanctioned loan. It has further been convassed that Shri Murli Bhatia died due to road side accident on 28.6.2007. Therefore, in view of the free personal accident insurance cover to the extent of the amount of the principal loan amount, the complainants became entitled to get benefit of the said insurance cover, but their claim was arbitrarily and illegally repudiated by the opposite parties, vide letter dated 3.4.2008. Such acts and conduct on the part of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service.

8.                To wriggle out the aforesaid contention learned counsel for the opposite parties laid stress on the contention that final disbursement of the loan was the condition precedent for extending the benefit of free personal accident insurance cover to the loanee and this condition was specifically mentioned even in the sanction letter, the copy of which is Ex.C3. Loan amount of Rs.16 lacs was sanctioned by the opposite parties, but only amount of Rs.12,35,000/- was disbursed. The remaining amount could not be disbursed as Shri Murli Bhatia had not submitted the permission to mortgage and title deed with the bank despite repeated requests. The complainants cannot take advantage of the letter dated 17.5.2007 sent by Shri Murli Bhatia, because the request made in the said letter was never accepted by the opposite parties and sanctioned amount was not finally considered as Rs.12,35,000/- instead of Rs.16 lacs. It has further been argued that the full loan amount of Rs.16 lacs was not disbursed to Shri Murli Bhatia, therefore, the complainants cannot be given the benefit of free personal accident insurance cover and as such their claim was rightly and legally rejected, vide letter dated 3.4.2008.

9.                A perusal of the copy of sanction letter Ex.C3 shows that the opposite parties gave free personal accident insurance cover to the first applicant of the loan, to the extent of principal amount with the full disbursement of the loan. The opposite parties sanctioned loan of Rs.16 lacs in favour of Shri Murli Bhatia, but admittedly, an amount of Rs.12,35,000/- was only disbursed to him. As per the case of the complainant and the letter dated 17.5.2007 issued by Shri Murli Bhatia the remaining amount of loan was not disbursed despite his repeated requests.

10.              On the other hand, the opposite parties have submitted that the remaining amount of loan was not disbursed as Shri Murli Bhatia had not submitted the permission to mortgage and title deed with the bank. Neither the complainant nor the opposite parties have produced any documentary evidence in support of their respective pleas. However, the fact remains that the remaining amount of loan was not disbursed to Shri Murli Bhatia. There is no evidence of the complainants, which may show that the documents i.e. permission to mortgage and title deed were deposited by Shri Murli Bhatia with the bank for release of the remaining amount of loan. Therefore, the plea raised by the opposite parties that the remaining loan amount was not disbursed as Shri Murli Bhatia had not submitted the permission to mortgage and title deed, cannot be discarded.

11.              No doubt Shri Murli Bhatia had written letter dated 17.5.2007 to the opposite parties for considering the disbursed loan amount of Rs.12,35,000/- as the sanctioned loan amount and start EMI’s on the same, but the opposite parties never accepted such offer during his life time.

                   In such a situation, the already disbursed amount of Rs.12,35,000/- out of the sanctioned loan of Rs.16 lacs cannot be considered as final disbursement of the sanctioned loan. Thus, it is a clear that the sanctioned loan amount was not finally disbursed to Shri Murli Bhatia. Therefore, the complainants cannot get benefit of free personal accident insurance cover as per condition of the loan.

13.              As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated: 27.07.2016

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                            District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             (Anil Sharma)

                               Member