DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No: CC/135/2021
Date of Institution: 14.07.2021
Date of Decision: 29.07.2024
1. Santosh Sharma aged about 60 years widow of Sh. Bal Krishan Sharma resident of Near NMSD School, Barnala, Teshil and District Barnala.
2. Keshav Kaushal aged about 32 years son of Sh. Bal Krishan Sharma resident of Near NMSD School, Barnala, Teshil and District Barnala (M.No. 99145-68100). …Complainants
Versus
1. Indiabulls, 1st Floor, Aura Heights, above Dena Ban, Near Teen Koni Chowk, Goniana Road, Bathinda through its Branch Manager;
2. Indiabulls Housinig Finance Limited, Indiabulls House, 448-451, Udyog Vihar, Phase V, Gurugram 122001, Haryana, India through its General Manager.
3. ICICI Lombard (Nibhaye Vaade), GIC Limited, Fourth Floor, Interface, 11, 401-4-2, New Linking Road, Malad, West Mumbai 400064 through its Managing Director/authorized person.
4. ICICI Lombard (Nibhaye Vaade), GIC Limited, ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhivinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai 400025;
5. ICICI Lombard (Nibhaye Vaade), GIC Limited, IL Health Care, Retail Claims, ICICI Lombard Healthcare, ICICI Bank Tower, Plot No. 12, Financial District, Nanakram Guda, Gachibowli, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 500032; through its representative.
…Opposite Parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Present: Sh. A.K. Jindal Adv counsel for complainants.
Sh. Anuj Mohan Adv counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2.
Sh. Jaspreet Singh Gill Adv counsel for opposite parties No. 3 to 5.
Quorum.-
1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover: President
2. Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg: Member
(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against Indiabulls, 1st Floor, Aura Heights, above Dena Ban, Near Teen Koni Chowk, Goniana Road, Bathinda through its Branch Manager & others (in short the opposite parties).
2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that one Bal Krishan Sharma son of Sh. Ram Chand Sharma resident of Barnala sole proprietor of M/s Vishal Electric Works, Near NMSD School, Barnala, who run his business for electric workshop and he was the sole proprietor of his firm and he was earn from his business for him and his family livelihood and the complainant No. 1 is the widow and complainant No. 2 is the son of said Bal Krishan Sharma. It is alleged that the said Bal Krishan Sharma during his lifetime availed a LAP loan of Rs. 22,67,999/- from opposite party No. 1 & 2 and equitably mortgaged property bearing property unit No. B-1/643 (OLD) and B-1/710 (NEW) situated at Near Durga Mata Mandir, Govt. School Wali Gali, Handiaya Bazar, Barnala and bounced as East by 18 feet street West by 18 feet Pathshala North by 48 feet Dharam Pal and South by 48 feet Kura Ram Dhadrian Wala, standing in the name of Smt. Santosh Sharma wife of Bal Krishan Barnala to secure the loan and the opposite party No. 1 and 2 insured the said loan with opposite party No. 3 to 5 vide insurance policy Invoice N. 4005/M/IBULL/146342055/00/000. It is further alleged that the opposite party No. 1 & 2 also get the blank signed cheques No. 604051 to 605054 duly signed by the complainant No. 1 as security from the complainant No. 1 at the time of advancement/sanction of the loan in question to Bal Krishan Sharma for his concern M/s Vishal Electric Works, Near NMSD School, Barnala. The opposite party No. 1 & 2 purchased an insurance policy in the name of Bal Krishan Sharma from the opposite party No. 3 to 5 and the sum insured was Rs. 22,67,999/- and opposite party No. 1 & 2 assured that if any mis-happening with the said Bal Krishan Sharma before adjustment of the said loan, then the amount of the loan is covered vide this policy to the extent of Rs. 22,67,999/- and in that event the amount of loan will be repayable by opposite party No. 3 to 5 being insured of the said loan. The said Bal Krishan Sharma appointed his nominee to the opposite party No. 2 also.
3. It is further alleged that the husband of the complainant No. 1 and father of complainant No. 2 was serious ill and he was admitted for treatment in Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana for his treatment and he was remained admitted from 11.10.2019 to 24.10.2019 and he was expired on 24.10.2019 at DMC&H, Ludhiana. It is alleged that the said Bal Krishan Sharma during his life time paid the premium of the policy in favour of the opposite parties and the employees of the opposite parties every time assured that his property, loan and life are assured and if any mis-happening mis-happened in future, then the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 will recover the entire dues of said LAP loan from opposite parties No. 3 to 5 and they will pay the entire amount of the loan to the opposite party No. 1 & 2 as per insurance policy. It is further alleged that the complainants duly informed to the opposite party No. 1 & 2 regarding the death of said Bal Krishan Sharma and visited their office many times and requested them that the remaining dues of the said LAP loan, be recovered from the opposite party No. 3 to 5 and the complainant No. 1 & 2 remind to the employees of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that at the time of advancement of said loan it was duly agreed by the employees of opposite party No. 2 they had already purchased the insurance policy in the name of deceased Bal Krishan Sharma. The complainants requested many times to the employees of opposite party No. 1 & 2 when they visited at Barnala to recover the entire dues lying in the LAP loan in the name of deceased Bal Krishan Sharma from the opposite party No. 3 to 5 and requested to return the blank cheques duly signed by the complainant No. 1 and the original title deed of complainant No. 1 and further requested to issue No Due Certificate in favour of the plaintiffs qua the said loan account, but opposite parties No. 1 & 2 under the grab of blank cheques No. 604051 to 605054 of complainant No. 1 and equitably mortgaged the property of complainant No. 1 threatened to the complainants to dispossess the complainants from the mortgaged property and threatened that they will use the blank cheques against the complainants. In this regard the opposite party No. 1 &2 also affixed notice under SARFEASI Act upon the wall of the property of complainants on 18.6.2021. It is further alleged that the complainants preferred a civil suit for permanent injunction bearing civil suit No. 338/2021 titled as Santosh Sharma and another Versus Indiabulls etc. in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Barnala, which is pending for 6.7.2021 for notice to the present opposite parties. As the opposite parties have failed to provide the services to the complainants as agreed by them, this act of the opposite parties caused a great mental tension, agony, harassment and physical loss to the complainants. It is alleged that the opposite parties have not accede the request of the complainants and flatly refused to do so and forced to the complainants to adjust the LAP loan with the opposite party No. 1 and 2 themselves. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-
i) To settle the assured amount of Rs. 22,67,999/- and further directed to the opposite party No. 1 & 2 to recover their dues from the opposite parties No. 3 to 5 as per insurance policy and the opposite parties No. 3 & 5 be directed to pay the entire dues of the said LAP loan to the opposite party No. 1 & 2 as per terms of the insurance policy.
ii) Further, to pay the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- on account of compensation for mental torture, agony and harassment and Rs. 1,00,000/- as litigation expenses.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 appeared and filed written version by taking preliminary submissions and objections interalia on the grounds that the facts stated by the complainants are false, frivolous, baseless and vehemently denied. The present complaint is bad in law, vexatious and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that admittedly the complainants and the deceased borrower Late Sh. Bal Krishan Sharma had availed the loan facilities from the answering opposite parties and were bound to repay the same as per contractually stipulated installments as per the loan agreement executed by the Borrowers and answering opposite parties. It is further alleged that the service provided by the opposite party No. 1 & 2 is not deficient in any manner nor has the answering opposite party indulged in any unfair trade practices. The dispute raised by the complainants is related to the violation of the insurance contract which was signed by them and the opposite party No. 3 to 5, it is submitted that the answering opposite parties are not privy to this contract. It is submitted that the contract and other documents which have been signed by the complainants with the answering opposite parties are all related to only sanction of loan amount and disbursal of loan amount. The complainants without directly approaching the opposite parties No. 3 to 5 which is the insurance company for their claim time and again visited the answering opposite parties for the said claim.
5. On merits, it is submitted that the Borrowers executed a “Request for Disbursal” dated 27.2.2018 and 16.4.2018 requesting the answering opposite parties to disburse certain funds out of the loan amount to the following persons/companies;-
a. Rs. 19,30,362/- in favour of Cholamandalam Investment and Finance Company limited and;
b. Rs. 67,999/- in favour of opposite parties No. 3 to 5;
Detail of Dated 16.4.2018 Request For Disbursal
a. Favoring Vishal Electric Wroks
Bank Name & A/C No. IOB A/C No. 032002000001175
Amount 269638/-
The said Request for Disbursal dated 27.2.2018 of loan amount was signed not only by Mr. Bal Krishan Sharma but also by Mr. Bal Krishan Sharma on behalf of M/s Vishal Electric Works, Mrs. Santosh Sharma and Mr. Keshav Kousal i.e. complainant No. 1 & 2 in the capacity of ‘Borrowers”. It is further alleged that the Borrowers requested answering opposite parties to include the premium to be paid to the Insurance Company against their policy in the loan amount, accordingly the borrower and co-borrowers executed “Request For Disbursal” dated 27.2.2018 wherein the borrower and co-borrowers gave their mandate to release an amount of Rs. 67,999/- in favour of opposite parties No. 3 to 5. It is further alleged that Mr. Bal Krishan Sharma had requested to opposite parties No. 3 to 5 to cancel the policy purchased and further requested that a fresh policy is required to be issued in the name of co-borrower namely Smt. Santosh Sharma. Accordingly, the opposite patries No. 3 to 5 canceled the policy No. 4005/M/IBULL/146342055/00/000 and issued a new policy in favour of Smt. Santosh Sharma bearing No. 4111/PIB/146344956/00/000 dated 5.3.2018. It is further submitted that answering opposite parties received an amount of Rs. 44,602/- (Rs. 937/- + Rs. 43,665/-) from the opposite party No. 3 to 5 and same was credited in complainants loan account on 18.5.2021 and this amount is reflected in statement of account dated 10.8.2021. It is further alleged that as per the statement of account dated 10.8.2021 with respect to the loan taken by the complainants bearing loan account number HLAPBAT00415368 an amount of Rs. 24,99,518,88/- is outstanding in the said loan maintained by the answering opposite parties. It is submitted that as per the normal course of lending business and also as per reasonable prudence the death of the main borrower automatically shifts the burden of repaying the loan amount to the co-borrowers. Hence, the answering opposite parties are well within their rights to take action against the complainants and proceed under the SARFESI ACT, in order to recover their total outstanding amount from the complainants. The answering opposite party No. 1 gave sufficient time under law to the complainants for making the due payments and thereafter issued a PRE-SARFASI notice dated 7.6.2021 to the complainants. Further, all other allegations of the complaint are denied by the opposite party No. 1 & 2 and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
6. The opposite parties No. 3 to 5 filed separate written version by taking legal objections on the ground that the present complaint is premature and the complainants have not lodged any claim with them regarding death of Bal Krishan Sharma and as such the complainants are required to be directed to lodge claim with the replying opposite parties alongwith all supporting and mandatory documents and the opposite parties will decide the claim of the complainants as per terms and conditions of the policy. Hence, the present complaint deserves dismissal at this stage being premature. The complainant have concealed the material facts and documents from the Commission. The complainants have no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present complaint etc.
7. On merits, the contents regarding availing loan of Rs. 22,67,999/- from the opposite party No. 1 & 2 and mortgage the property are also denied. It is denied that the sum assured of Rs. 22,67,999/- was payable in case of any mis-happening, rather the sum assured was payable only in case of accidental death. The said insurance & coverage is strictly as per terms and conditions of the policy. The complainants have themselves placed on record the insurance policy which is clearly shows that it is an accidental insurance policy and not covering death in case of any disease. It is further submitted that there is no question for the complainants to make any alleged request to the replying opposite parties as the complainants have not lodged any claim with the replying opposite parties. All other allegations are denied and prayed for the dismissal of complaint.
8. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written version filed by the opposite parties and reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint.
9. To prove their case the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit of Santosh Sharma Ex.C-1, copy of loan sanction letter Ex.C-2 containing 4 pages), copy of loan agreement Ex.C-3 (containing 17 pages), copy of statement of account Ex.C-4 (containing 7 pages), copy of policy Ex.C-5 (containing 6 pages), copy of death summary and medicine bill Ex.C-6 (containing 3 pages), copy of death certificate Ex.C-7, copy of notice under sarfesai Ex.C-8, copy of photographs Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-13, copy of reply to legal notice Ex.C-14, copies of postal receipts Ex.C-15 to Ex.C-19, copy of plaint Ex.C-20 (containing 7 pages), copy of transfer deed Ex.C-21 (containing 8 pages) and closed the evidence.
10. To rebut the case of the complainants the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sanjeev Kumar Ex.O.P1.2/1, copy of authority letter Ex.O.P1.2/2, copy of loan application from Ex.O.P1.2/3 (containing 9 pages), copy of loan sanction letter Ex.O.P1.2/4 (containing 4 pages), copy of loan agreement Ex.O.P1.2/5 (containing 17 pages), copy of disbursal request form Ex.O.P1.2/6 (containing 2 pages), copy of statement of account Ex.O.P1.2/7 (containing 7 pages), copy of reply to the notice Ex.O.P1.2/8 (containing 4 pages) and closed the evidence.
11. The opposite party No. 3 to 5 tendered into evidence affidavit of Rohan Mishra Ex.O.P3.4.5/1, copy of Risk Assumption letter Ex.O.P3.4.5/2 (containing 17 pages) and closed the evidence.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on file. Written arguments filed by all the parties.
13. Ld. Counsel for the complainants argued that husband of complainant No. 1 Bal Krishan Sharma availed a LAP loan of Rs. 22,67,999/- from opposite party No. 1 & 2 and mortgaged his property. Ld. Counsel for the complainants further argued that the husband of the complainant No. 1 also insured the said loan with opposite party No. 3 to 5 vide insurance policy Invoice N. 4005/M/IBULL/146342055/00/000. It is further argued that the opposite party No. 1 & 2 assured that if any mis-happening with the said Bal Krishan Sharma before adjustment of the said loan then the amount of the loan is covered vide this policy to the extent of Rs. 22,67,999/- and in that event the amount of loan will be repayable by opposite party No. 3 to 5 being insured of the said loan and the said Bal Krishan Sharma appointed his nominee to the opposite party No. 2 also. Ld. Counsel for the complainants further argued that said Bal Krishan Sharma was serious ill and was admitted in Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana for his treatment and he was remained admitted from 11.10.2019 to 24.10.2019 and was expired on 24.10.2019 at DMC&H, Ludhiana. The complainants duly informed to the opposite party No. 1 & 2 regarding the death of said Bal Krishan Sharma and visited their office many times and requested them that the remaining dues of the said LAP loan be recovered from the opposite party No. 3 to 5 and the complainant No. 1 & 2 remind to the employees of opposite parties No. 1 & 2 that at the time of advancement of said loan it was duly agreed by the employees of opposite party No. 2 they had already purchased the insurance policy in the name of deceased Bal Krishan Sharma. It is further argued that the complainants to return the blank cheques duly signed by the complainant No. 1 and the original title deed of complainant No. 1 and further requested to issue No Due Certificate in favour of the complainants plaintiffs qua the said loan account, despite that the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 initiated the proceedings under SARFEASI Act and the complainants also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction bearing civil suit No. 338/2021 titled as Santosh Sharma and another Versus Indiabulls etc. in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Barnala. Ld. Counsel for the complainants further argued that the opposite parties have not accede the request of the complainants and flatly refused to pay the insured amount of said loan which is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
14. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 argued that the said Bal Krishan Sharma had obtained the loan facility of opposite parties No. 1 & 2. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 further argued that they are bound to repay the same as per contractually stipulated installments as per the loan agreement executed by the Borrowers and opposite parties. It is further argued that the service provided by the opposite party No. 1 & 2 is not deficient in any manner nor the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 indulged in any unfair trade practices. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 further argued that contract and other documents which have been signed by the complainants with the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are only related to sanction of loan amount and disbursal of loan amount. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2 further argued that the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 are well within their rights to take action against the complainants and proceed under the SARFESI ACT, in order to recover their total outstanding amount from the complainants. It is further argued that the opposite party No. 1 gave sufficient time under law to the complainants for making the due payments and thereafter issued a PRE-SARFASI notice dated 7.6.2021 to the complainants.
15. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 3 to 5 argued that the present complaint is premature and the complainants have not lodged any claim with them regarding death of Bal Krishan Sharma and as such the complainants are required to be directed to lodge claim with the opposite parties No. 3 to 5 alongwith all supporting and mandatory documents. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 3 to 5 further argued that the present complaint deserves dismissal at this stage being premature. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties No. 3 to 5 further argued that the opposite parties No. 3 to 5 are not bound to pay the sum assured of Rs. 22,67,999/- in case of any mis-happening, rather the sum assured was payable only in case of accidental death. Ld. Counsel for opposite parties No. 3 to 5 further argued that as per the insurance policy it is clear that the policy is an accidental insurance policy and not covering death in case of any disease.
16. In the present case we have carefully gone through the entire facts and evidence produced by both the parties. It is admitted case of the parties that the deceased Bal Krishan Sharma obtained the loan from the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and mortgaged his property. The only dispute in the present case is that whether the complainants are entitled for the insurance amount from the opposite parties No. 3 to 5. The complainants in their complaint stated that Bal Krishan Sharma was serious ill and was admitted in Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana for his treatment and he was remained admitted from 11.10.2019 to 24.10.2019 and was expired on 24.10.2019 at DMC&H, Ludhiana. The complainants also produced the death summary of Bal Krishan Sharma as Ex.C-6 vide which it is established that the said Bal Krishan Sharma was admitted in the hospital for serious illness. The complainants also produced insurance policy Ex.C-5 and on the perusal of the said insurance it established that the policy was obtained by the Bal Krishan Sharma is “Accidental Insurance Policy to Home Loan Customers of India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd”. The complainants have produced all the details of the said policy from which it established that the policy taken by the said Bal Krishan Sharma is covered only accidental death. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 3 to 5 argued that the complainants admitted in their complaint and produced the record of Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana vide which it is established that the death of said Bal Krishan Sharma was occurred due to illness. Therefore, the complainants are not entitled for death claim of said Bal Krishan Sharma as the natural death or illness is not covered under the policy.
17. It is clear from the evidence produced by the complainants of Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana and the insurance policy Ex.C-5 that the said policy was for only accidental death but the said Bal Krishan Sharma husband of the complainant No. 1 and father of the complainant No. 2 Sh. Bal Krishan Sharma died due to illness. In these circumstances, we find no merits in the present complaint and the same is dismissed without cost. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:
29th Day of July, 2024
(Ashish Kumar Grover)
President
(Navdeep Kumar Garg)
Member
