DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 287 of 6.8.2019

                                      Decided on:           22.12.2022

Paramjit Kaur aged 60 years, widow of Sh.Partap Singh, resident of House No.57/2-C,Anand Nagar-B, Patiala now residing at House No.109/2, Deep Nagar, Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       India Infoline Housing Finance Limited (IIFL)

A.      Registered Address

          12a-10,13^th Floor, Parinee Creseenzo, C-38 & C-39, G-Block, Behind      Mca, Bandhra Kurla Complex, East Mumbai-400051 through its M.D.

B.      Scf No.43-44, First Floor, DLF Colony, Sirhind Road, Patiala 147001     through its Branch Manager.

2.       Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

          Registered Office:

          Unit 601 & 602, 6^th Floor, Raheja Titeniun , Off Western Express Highway,           Goregaon ( East , Mumbai-4000063).

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Sh. S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Sh.G.S.Nagi,Member    

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Dhiraj Puri,counsel for complainant.

                                      Complaint against OP No.1 is dismissed as withdrawn

                                      Sh.Pankaj Verma, counsel for OP No.2.                       

 ORDER

                                      S.K.AGGARWAL,PRESIDENT

1. The instant order will dispose of complaint filed by Paramjit Kaur  (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against India Infoline Housing Finance Limited and another(hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act ( for short the Act), stating therein that husband of the complainant now deceased  Sh.Partap Singh availed the housing loan from the OPs at Patiala vide loan account No.713721 of Rs.12,50,00/- and is regularly depositing the installments.  Alongwith housing loan, deceased Partap Singh was also insured by OP No.1 through OP No.2 and has paid the single premium of Rs.1,02,522.88. As such complainant is consumer and is competent to file the present complaint.
2. On 31.7.2014, husband of the complainant and OPs No.1&2 entered into an agreement at Patiala for availing the housing loan of Rs.12,50,000/- and Rs.1,02,522.88 being the insurance premium. Thus, OP no.1 sanctioned Rs.13,56,737/- at the 12.5% interest to be paid in 180 months, to be paid in EMI of Rs.16,722/-per month. The husband of the complainant was principal borrower. It is further averred that before obtaining the loan from OP No.1, the agent/authorized person of the OP, when solicit the loan told the complainant and her husband, that insurance is mandatory and if, during the tenure of the loan some mishap occurs with the principal borrower, then in that eventuality the loan is to be repaid by the insurer i.e. OP No.2 and the pending installments shall not be paid. It is further averred that husband of the complainant deposited all the installments as per the amortization schedule. Unfortunately, on 27.4.2019, husband of the complainant Partap Singh passed away. Since the complainant produced all the documents required by the OPs and when OPs assured the complainant that no installment is required to be paid against the loan account No.713721 and also assured that the premium amount shall be paid by OP No.2 to OP No.1 being insured. However, on 21.6.2019, the complainant was surprised  that an amount of Rs.6,56,771/- deposited by OP No.2 in the loan account No.713721 and the amount of Rs.4,70,600/- was shown to be repaid to OP No.1.Immediately complainant approached OP No.1 and enquired as to how, the half of the amount only deposited in the loan account, whereas the complete loan amount outstanding is to be credited in the loan account as per the assurance given at the time of taking the loan and purchasing the policy. However, OP No.1 threatened the complainant to deposit the remaining amount or forceful action shall be initiated against the complainant for the recovery of the balance amount. The complainant requested the Branch Manager of OP No.1that she is house wife and having no independent income of her own and the business being run by her husband was shut down immediately after the death of her husband. Thus, she is not having any source to pay the outstanding amount but OP No.1 adamant on their view that the amount already credited in the loan amount is only payable and the remaining amount is to be paid and further refused to pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. Consequently, prayer for acceptance of the complaint has been made and it is requested that the OPs be directed to credit the amount of Rs.4,70,000/- in the loan account No.IIFL 713721 and write of the remaining loan amount And not to threaten and to recover forcibly any installment  And return Rs.29,554/- i.e. two installments for the months of May & June wrongly deposited by the complainant and to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for the mental pain and harassment suffered by the complainant And also to pay Rs.44000/- on account of litigation expenses.
3. Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed reply. Various preliminary objections have been taken and on merits controverted all the pleas and assertions put forth by the complainant.  It is also pertinent to mention here that complaint against OP No.1 is dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 31.3.2021.
4. OP No.2 i.e. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Company Ltd. filed detailed reply by taking various preliminary objections.
5. On merits, it is averred that the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is asserted that on the basis of self filled questionnaire, the subject policy was issued to the complainant. It is settled principle of law that a principal holder can be held vicariously liable for the acts of an agent, only where such act was within the scope of the agent’s authority. There is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of replying OP.
6. As per the terms of the policy contract if, the policy is not suitable, the policy holder may get his/her policy cancelled  by returning the policy within 15 days from the day the policy holder received the policy. In the present case, the policy was dispatched to the complainant and the same was duly received by him. It is submitted that the life assured died on 27.4.2019 i.e. in the 56^th month of the policy. As per plan, coverage term was 96 months but as per death benefit table amount payable on 56^th months was Rs.6,56,771/- which was paid to OP No.1 and admitted in the complaint by the complainant. The death benefit payable by the company will be as per the table shown in the certificate of insurance(terms and conditions) and shall be irrespective of the loan amount outstanding at the time of death of life insured. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. It is further averred that the OP company does not authorize any of its agent to offer any such false promises or benefits to its customers, which are at variance with its product features and assuming without admitting  that such false promises were made by the agent of the company, the same would fall beyond the scope of the agent’s authority and the company would not be vicariously liable for the same. All other allegations and assertions put forth by the complainant in her complaint have been denied and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has thus, been made.
7. In support of her claim of the complainant, ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of the complainant,Ex.CA alongwith documents, Ex.C1 copy of loan agreement, Ex.C2 copy of schedule, Ex.C3 copy of insurance, Exs.C4 &C5, copies of amortization schedule, Ex.C6 copy of death certificate,Ex.C7 copy of claim form, Ex.C8 medical record, Ex.C9 copy of statement of account and close the evidence.
8. On the other hand,Sh.Pankaj Verma, counsel for OP No.2 has tendered in evidence Ex.OPB affidavit of Karanveer Singh, Manager Legal Bharti Axa alongwith documents, Ex.OP2 copy of SQF, Ex.OP3 copy of claim and claim settlement letter, Ex.OP4 copy of death claim alongwith postmortem report,  death certificate, election card of Partap Singh & Paramjit Kaur, copy of pass book etc.,Ex.OP5 copy of claim payment letter dated 21.6.2019,Ex.OP6 copy of payment advice and closed the evidence.
9. It is hereby stated that the complaint against OP No.1 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated  31.3.2021, therefore, no claim against OP No.1 is exist.
10. After going through the record and hearing contentions of both sides, we have found that husband of the complainant  and OPs No.1&2 entered into an agreement,Ex.C1 for availing loan of Rs.12,50,000/- and Rs.1,02,522.88 being the insurance premium. Thus, OP No.1 sanctioned Rs.13,56,737/- @ interest rate of 12.5% to be paid in 180 months, to be paid in EMI of Rs.16,722/- per month. This fact stands proved from the loan agreement,Ex.C1.The copy of certificate  of insurance dated 28.8.2014 is Ex.C3.
11. It is also the plea of the complainant that at the time of obtaining the loan, agent /authorized person of the OPs told the complainant and her husband that insurance is mandatory and if, during the tenure of the loan some mishap occurs with the principal borrower, then in that eventuality the loan is to be repaid by the insurer i.e. OP No.2 and the pending installments shall not be paid. This part of the version and assertion put forth by the complainant has not specifically been denied by OP No.2. The ld counsel has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redessal Commission, New Delhi in the case titled as Rajendra Singh Vs. Life Ins.Corn. of India 2014(2)C.P.J.194
12. It is pertinent to mention here that OP No.1 insured the policy holder at the instance of OP No.2 to secure the liability And the complainant paid the handsome amount of premium to the tune of Rs.1,02,522.88 to OP No.1 and thus, total sanctioned amount was Rs.13,56,737/-. Unfortunately, on 27.4.2019, husband of the complainant Sh.Partap Singh passed away, copy of death certificate is Ex.C6. Thus, complainant being the wife of deceased Partap Singh was not required to deposit any amount against the loan account No.713721. However, only an amount of Rs.6,56,771/- was deposited by OP No.2 in the loan account No.713721 And the amount  of Rs.4,70,600/- was shown to be repaid to OP No.1.
13. It is the plea of OP No.2 (Insurance company) that death benefit payable by the company will be as per the Table shown in certificate of insurance (terms and conditions) and shall be irrespective of the loan amount outstanding at the time of death of the life insured. However, this arguments put forth by the ld. counsel for OP No.2 appears to be attractive but without any substance  as it is not  proved that OP No.2 ever brought this table to the notice of the complainant. Therefore, OP No.2 cannot be permitted to take benefit of this table at this juncture. However, during the course of arguments, ld. counsel for the complainant has fairly conceded that on 31.3.2021 during the pendency of the complaint OP No.1 accepted the OTS (one time settlement) proposal of the complainant in the loan account No.713721 Rs.3,48,350/-in one installment, which was accepted by OP No.1. It is worthwhile to mentioned here that the complainant did not want to proceed  qua OP No.1 but still wanted to continue the complaint against OP No.2 i.e. Bharti Axa Life Insurance Co.Ltd.
14. No doubt complaint qua OP No.1 was withdrawn but the right to recover the paid amount to the tune of Rs.3,48,350/- continued qua OP No.2 i.e. Insurance company.
15. Now the question is that how much amount was to be paid by OP No.2 (insurance company).Ld. counsel for the complainant has invited our intentions that a sum of Rs.6,56,711/- was paid and only a sum of Rs.3,48,350/-was required to be paid by OP No.2 Insurance company and he is satisfied if the relief qua that amount is given to the complainant. The covered amount under the policy was Rs.12,50,000/-on the death of the principal borrower.No doubt under the compelling circumstances the complainant paid the amount to the tune of Rs.3,48,350/-, but it was incumbent upon the insurance company to pay the entire outstanding loan amount at the time of the demise of the husband of the complainant. Therefore, keeping in view the arguments put forth by the ld counsel for the complainant and OP No.2 and the entire evidence available on record, it is deemed appropriate to direct OP No.2 to refund the amount of Rs.3,48,350/- to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of this order. We order accordingly. The complaint is hence partly allowed. Parties are left to bear their own costs.        
16.           The instant complaint could not be decided within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.

PRONOUNCED

DATED:23.12.2022     

                                          G.S.Nagi                                 S.K.AGGARWAL

                                           Member                                  President