DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH Complaint Case No.: 955 of 2009 Date of Inst: 08.07.2009 Date of Decision:09.09.2010 Sanjeev Kumar Bansal s/o Sh.Prem Chand r/o H.No.519 Cinema Road, Nabha and presently at # 202, 2nd Floor, Tower No.9, Royale Estates, Zirakpur. ---Complainant V E R S U S 1. ICICI Bank Ltd., SCO No.174-75, Second Floor, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh through its Regional Business Head. 2nd Address : SCO No.180-82, Sector Floor, Sector 9, Chandigarh. 2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Sector 8, Chandigarh through its Manager/Branch Head. 2nd Address : SCO No.180-82, Sector Floor, Sector 9, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Parties QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER SMT.MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER PRESENT: Sh.Munish Kumar, Adv. for complainant Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs. --- PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh.Sanjeev Kumar Bansal has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OPs be directed to :- i) Refund the amount of premium against the insurance policy No.4065/ICICI-HSP/1382302/00/000 along with interest @ 12% p.a. ii) pay Rs.4 lacs on account of financial loss, mental agony and harassment. iii) Pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he took housing loan of Rs.19,57,300/- by mortgaging his flat No.202 in Royale Estate, Zirakpur. As per the scheme of Bank, his loan was insured and insurance premium was paid by him to OP-2. According to the complainant, OP-Bank assured him that they will not charge any foreclosure charges in case he wants to clear the loan amount and they will adjust the insurance premium at the time of full and final settlement of the loan amount. It has been pleaded by the complainant that in order to clear the loan amount, he deposited Rs.10 lacs vide receipt dated 07.11.2008 (Annexure C-8) and Rs.5 lacs vide receipt dated 15.11.2008 (Annexure C-9). The complainant requested OPs to supply the statement of account to clear the outstanding dues against the said loan account. On receipt of the statement of account (Annexure C-10), the complainant was shocked to see that an amount of Rs.488712.82 were shown as outstanding amount which included the late payment penalty charges, cheque bouncing charges and foreclosure charges @ 2.25 % on the outstanding principal amount. Thereafter, the complainant approached OP-Bank to rectify the same as he was not liable to pay the foreclosure charges etc. but officials of the OP-Bank refused to do so. Under the compelled circumstances and in order to clear the loan amount, the complainant paid Rs.4,88,713/- vide receipt dated 19.11.2008 (Annexure C-11). Thereafter, the complainant requested OP-Bank to return the original documents of the flat, the insurance premium, EMI Chart, principal certificate etc. but they told the complainant that they had not received the same from their head office. The complainant made repeated visits as well as requests to OPs to return the aforesaid documents but to no avail. According to the complainant, in the statement of EMI (repayment schedule) dated 15.01.2009, the payment of Rs.4,88,713/- has not been adjusted. Ultimately, OP-Bank issued NOC in respect of the loan account of the complainant on 13.02.2009 but the insurance premium was not returned to him. Therefore, the complainant made an application dated 13.02.2009 to the OP-2 for refund of the insurance premium but the same was not refunded till date. According to the complainant, non-refund of the insurance premium despite his repeated requests to the OPs amounts to deficiency in service. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the above mentioned reliefs. 3. In its written statement, OP-1 pleaded that the complainant has made the prayer only for refund of the insurance premium which relates to OP-2 and OP-Bank has no concern with the issuance of the insurance policy or its cancellation. It has been further pleaded that the amount, if any, is to be refunded by OP-2. In these circumstances, according to OP-1, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 4. In its separate written statement, it has been admitted by OP-2 that the complainant had taken the insurance policy for securing the loan. According to OP-2, the insurance policy was valid for the period 19.03.2008 to 18.03.2013 and it was a single premium policy under which the policy continues to exist for such period of time as the loan availed by the complainant would have continued with OP No.1. It has been further pleaded by OP-2 that the amount could only be refunded on a pro rata basis and OP is ready to refund the same after deduction of the processing fees, charges etc. In these circumstances, according to OP-2, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits along with the written submissions filed by the complainant. 6. The only grouse of the complainant is that OP-2 has failed to refund the amount of premium against the Home Safe Plus- Secure Mind Policy No.4065/ICICI-HSP/1382302/00/000 despite the fact that the loan had already been cleared by him and that he also completed all the formalities regarding releasing of the insurance premium. It is an admitted fact that the complainant has cleared his loan with the OP-1 and OP-1 has also issued NOC to the complainant in respect of the clearance of his loan amount on 13.02.2009. In its written statement, OP-2 has not raised any objection that the complainant has failed to complete any formalities regarding releasing of the insurance premium. It has also not been disputed that the loan account of the complainant has not been cleared so far. The only contention of the OP-2 is that it is liable to pay the insurance premium on pro rata basis after deducting the processing charges etc. OP-2 has failed to place on record any document to show its intention that it ever offered refund of any insurance premium amount on pro rata basis to the complainant after deducting the processing charges etc as alleged. In these circumstances, non-refund of the insurance premium to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on the part of OP-2. 7. The complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against OP-1 and no relief has been sought by the complainant against OP-1. Thus, the complaint qua OP-1 stands dismissed. 8. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OP-2 to refund the insurance premium on pro rata basis for the unexpired period i.e. from 14.02.2009 to 18.03.2013 after deducting the process charges etc. to the complainant. OP-2 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment to the complainant and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation. 9. This order be complied with by the OP No.2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the OP No.2 shall be liable to refund the aforesaid total amount to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. 08.07.2009 till its realization besides costs of litigation of Rs.5000/-. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 09.09.2010 sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT cm sd/- (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI) MEMBER Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER
C.C.No.955 of 2009 PRESENT: None. --- Arguments heard on 07.09.2010. The case was reserved for orders. As per separate detailed order of even date, this complaint is allowed. After compliance file be consigned. Announced. 09.09.2010 Member President Member
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
