Delhi

East Delhi

CC/405/2015

PREM - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

14 Dec 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVIENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, SAINI ENCLAVE: DELHI-92

 

CC. NO-405/15

In the matter of:

Sh. Prem Kumar Aggarwal

S/o Late Shri Moti Lal

9, Shubham Apartments,37, I.P. Extn

•  

          Complainant

 

Vs

 

1. ICICI Bank Limited

Through its Directors

F-11,Preet Vihar, Delhi-110092

 

2. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Co. Ltd.

Through its Directors

2.  

5, Community Centre, Karkardooma, Delhi-110092

                                                                                                                    Opposite Parties

 

                                                                                                DATE OF ADMISSION-02/06/2015

                                                                                                DATE OF ORDER        -14/12/2015

 

ORDER

 

SH. N.A.ZAIDI, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed with the allegation that the complainant has saving bank account No.003701017072 and loan account No.LBNOD00002341496 with Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 vide letter dated 15/01/2015 offered loan with and without insurance for Rs.1,50,00,000/- and Rs.1,63,00,000/- respectively. The Respondent No.1 also informed that the insurance premium is about Rs.13,00,000/- which was being financed by the Respondent No.1 for payment to the Respondent No.2. Complainant opted for Rs.1,63,00,000/- with insurance and got agreement dated 16/03/2015 signed vide letter dated 18/03/2015. It was informed that they have disbursed the sum of Rs.1,52,60,000/- against a sanctioned loan of Rs.1,63,00,000/- though no disbursement had been made by the Respondent.

            Even before the loan disbursement Respondent No.1 collected Pre-EMI of Rs.21,513/- from the Complainant on 06/04/2015 and cheque dated 31/03/2015 for Rs.1,50,00,000/- was paid to the seller of the house on 21/04/2015. When it was inquired regarding the sum of Rs.2,60,000/- it was informed that it has been paid to the Respondent No.2. After 15 days of this disbursement of loan of Rs.1,52,60,000/- the Respondent No.1 deducted Rs.2,16,762/- as EMI on loan amount of 1,63,00,000/- from saving account of the Complainant. The Respondent No.2 had never stated that the insurance would be subject to any condition and no such condition was mentioned in offer letter dated 15/01/2015. The refusal by the Respondent to provide insurance cover citing “TMT findings past medical History” without any basis no critical medical condition was ever mentioned by the Respondent No.2. They are bound to maintain insurance cover throughout the tenure of the loan as the offer was accepted by the Respondent. Complainant has prayed for the refund of Rs.21,513/- along with interest, recalculating the EMI of the loan account of Rs.1,52,60,000/- and not Rs.1,63,00,000/- from 05/06/2015 and refund of the EMI charges along with interest, charge only pre EMI on 05/05/2015 for the loan amount of Rs.1,52,60,000/-, direction for the insurance company for the insurance cover, refund of Rs.1,30,000/- premium for one year from premium of Rs.2,60,000/- which was for two years as charged by the Respondent, the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- towards cost of litigation.

            Respondent No.2 in their written statement have taken the plea that there is no contract as no policy was issued to the complainant. The Insurance Company has to evaluate the overall risk under the application before accepting it and it is the discretion of the insurance company to accept/reject/offer alternate terms of the proposal. The premium paid by the Complainant is already refunded and has got adjusted in his loan account. Rest all the allegations have been denied.

            Respondent No.1 in their reply has raised the plea of pecuniary jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction.

            The issuance of the insurance policy is the prerogative of the Respondent No.2 and refused by Respondent No.2 on medical ground since the policy was not issued the premium amount was refunded to the complainant account which is reflecting in the statement of account. The loan was disbursed on 17/03/2015 which was informed to him vide letter dated 18/03/2015. Since there was 13 days left in the month of March 2015 and four days of April 2015 were taken for calculating the Pre EMI, the amount of Rs.21,513/- was charged as Pre EMI, although the loan was sanctioned on 29/01/2015 and due to the request of the customer as the payment was made to be in April 2015 as such the loan was not disbursed earlier. In the sanctioned letter itself the Pre EMI has been explained and this is binding upon the complainant.  Since the issuance of the policy of insurance was declined and premium of Rs.2.6 lacs was refunded to the complainant on 2^nd June 2015 as such there is no grievance left of the complainant. The complaint is misconceived but deserves to be dismissed.

            Both the parties have filed on record their respective Affidavit in Evidence and documents.

            The Counsel for the Respondent at the time of arguments did not press much regarding the territorial jurisdiction. This is not denied that the complainant is not having saving bank account and loan account as mentioned in para-1 of the complaint in the Respondent No.1  branch in Preet Vihar Delhi-92 which falls within the jurisdiction of this Forum. In so far as the pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned though the amount of loan sanctioned is Rs.1,63,00,000/- the relief which has been claimed is well below Rs.20,00,000/-. The counsel for the Respondent has failed to show how the complaint is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction. Taking into consideration the relief claimed and the amount of compensation sought for it is much below Rs.20,00,000/-.

             This is admitted facts that the complainant applied for loan to purchase the house and he opted for loan with insurance cover a total sum of Rs.1,63,00,000/-. Annexure C-3 is the documents issued by the respondent for providing the information to the complainant and as per the documents this facility agreement was executed on 16/03/2015 and the amount sanctioned was Rs.1,63,00,000/- its tenure was 120 months and EMI Rs.2,16,763/- and the date of commencement was 05/04/2015. On 18/03/2015 Annexure C-4 gives the total amount sanctioned, the disbursed amount of Rs.1,52,60,000/-, this also mentioned Pre EMI for the next month till further disbursal of Rs.1,29,075/-. This has been argued on behalf of the complainant that as per the statement of account filed by the Respondent No.1 along with their written statement an amount of Rs.1,52,60,000/- has been shown to be debited in the account of the complainant and on the same day the sum of Rs.2,60,000/- has been shown to be paid to the insurance company. The document which has been filed along with the complaint has not been denied by either by the Respondents.

In Annexure C-5, this amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- was paid to Sh. Iqbal Ahmed Ansari  on 21/04/2015 vide Cheque No.619095 dated 31/03/2015. It has been argued that till 31/03/2015 this amount was with the bank and the date of commencement of the EMI as per the Annexure C-3 was 05/04/2015. The EMI could only be started from the date of the disbursement and payment by the bank. At best the Pre EMI amount could only be charged by the bank from 31/03/2015 to 05/04/2015 while they have calculated the Pre EMI from 17/03/2015 when this amount was not available to the borrower complainant. As such the charging of amount of Rs.21513/- is illegal and the same deserves to be reverted back by the respondent No.1 into the account of the complainant.

            The second question which arises for our consideration in this complaint is as to whether the Respondent could collect the EMI @  Rs.2,16,762/- when the amount disbursed was Rs.1,52,60,000/-  and not Rs.1,63,00,000/- as this amount of EMI has been calculated on total amount of Rs.1,63,00,000/- and not on Rs.1,52,60,000/-. The charging of EMI on 05/05/2015 on the same amount of Rs.1,63,00,000/- @ of Rs. 2,16,762/- is illegal. The bank had calculated more amount of EMI when that much of amount was not to paid to the complainant. This reflects that the Respondent No.1 has violated the financial discipline and collected the excess amount of EMI from the complainant. Once they have disbursed only an amount of Rs.1,52,60,000/- and the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- which was paid to the insurance company was reverted back in the account of the complainant. The EMI should have been calculated taking into consideration the amount of Rs.1,52,60,000/-. It has not been done by the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 is directed to recalculate the EMIs charged on 05/05/2015 and revert back excess amount which has been charged continuously in each of the EMIs realized from the complainant, into the account of the complainant.

 The another question which arises for our consideration in this case is as to whether the Respondent No.2 was not under obligation to provide the cover to the loan availed by the complainant after acceptance of the premium and the offer of the complainant. In the Affidavit filed by Sh. Chittesh Sharma Senior Manager Legal of the Respondent No.2, only one question which has been raised with regard to the contract between the complainant and the insurance company not being concluded and they have right to deny the benefit of the insurance cover to this subject loan. It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for the complainant that this is categorically admitted in the written statement as well as in the affidavit of Sh. Chittesha Sharma that the amount of premium was received and credited into the account of the respondent company. It was refunded back to the bank on the ground of Health risk as such the policy was not issued. The Respondent no.2 have not filed on record any evidence which could disentitled the complainant for availing the facility of insurance on the health ground. The only fact which has been mentioned in the Affidavit of Respondent is that the Kidney of the complainant was removed in 2010 and due to this respondent No.2 has refused to issue the cover on the life of the complainant loan. The ground for refusal itself appears to be arbitrary. The complainant was operated in 2010. In the last 5 years there is no evidence that he is suffering from any other ailment. He is leading normal life, apart from this it is known medical condition that the person with one Kidney can live their life without any problem. In these circumstances when complainant is not having any medical problem and he is leading the normal life, the ground taken by the Respondent that his health is at risk is arbitrary. There is no proof filed on record by the Respondent that the complainant is having “TMT findings and Post Medical History”.  As per the Contract Act, once the proposal is made and accepted, it shall be deemed to be concluded contract. It is an admitted fact on record that the amount of premium was paid into the account of Respondent No.2. Once they have accepted the amount or premium the contract shall be have deemed have been concluded. There was no other option to the Respondent No.2 but to issue the insurance cover to the loan in question. The denial on their part and reversal of the amount into the account of the Respondent No.1 is wholly illegal and it amounts to deficiency in service and also unfair act on the part of the respondent No.2.

            We direct the Respondent No.2 to provide the insurance cover to the loan in question collecting the premium amount for one year from respondent No.1 within a period of 10 days from the date of service of this order.

In view of the discussion made above we allow this complaint. Respondent No.1 is directed to credit the amount of Rs.21,513/- in the account of complainant within 10 days from the date of the order. The respondent No.1 is further directed to refund into the account of the complainant the excess amount charged on EMIs as noted above in the body of the judgment along with 10.15% interest thereon from the date of the realization of the excess amount and its reversal in the account of the complainant. The complainant of this case has been harassed by both the respondent which has caused him mental tension and agony and uncertainty with regard to benefit which he was entitled legally. The harassment caused deserves to be compensated. We award the compensation of Rs.50,000/- which shall also include the cost of litigation and this amount shall equally shared by both the respondents for payment to the complainant.

The copy of the order be sent to the parties as per rules.

 

                                                            

POONAM MALHOTRA                                                                                            N.A.ZAIDI

          MEMBER                                                                                                         PRESIDENT