| This revision petition has been filed against concurrent orders of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore and State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu. The Consumer Complaint was allowed by the District Forum and the appeal of the revision petitioner/Sate Bank of India has been dismissed by the State Commission. 2. The facts of the case, as seen from the record, pertain to a house loan of Rs.5.21 lakhs sanctioned jointly on 6.10.2005 to the Complainant and her husband. Her husband died on 6.11.2007. Thereafter, the Complainant made several requests to the bank seeking details of the SBI Life Suraksha Group Insurance Scheme under which her loan was allegedly covered. However, she received no response and hence, the consumer complaint. 3. In a brief but sharply focused order the District Forum has pin pointed the following facts pertaining to this case:- a) In the written response of the OP/State Bank of India, it is admitted that the sanctioned amount was Rs.5.21 lakhs but the disbursed amount was only Rs.4.91 lakhs. b) Under clause 8, the loan was to be covered by SBI Life Suraksha Group Insurance Scheme. c) Clause 10 of the loan sanction letter makes it clear that the letter in respect of SBI Life advance would be executed before disbursement of the loan. d) In terms of Clause 13 of the loan sanction letter, the loan amount was to be disbursed directly to the builder/vendor and the disbursement of the premium on SBI Life was to be made directly to the SBI Life. e) The Complainant has contended that the balance of Rs.30,000/- in the sanctioned loan amount, after disbursal of Rs.4.91 lakhs to the vendor, was retained towards necessary insurance charges. This has not been denied by the opposite party, in the letter to the Complaint (Ex.B4). In fact, nothing is said in this letter about the remaining amount of Rs 30,000. The District Forum therefore, came to the conclusion that 50% of the loan amount (being the share of the complainant husband) as to be adjusted from out of the proceeds claimed through insurance and it is for the opposite party bank to have secured the loan by means of due insurance which is left to their look out. 4. In the appeal filed by the revision petitioner/OP, the State Commission has considered at length the provisions and stipulations in clauses 4,8,10 and 13 of the three-page Loan sanction Letter of 6.10.2005 from the OP to the complainant and has come to the conclusion that rom these it is clear while sanctioning the loan the 1st opposite party made provision for the payment of SBI Life premium for the loan secured directly by themselves and the documents of insurance will be with the bank. If the opposite party failed to secure necessary documents in this regard before the disbursing the loan amount certainly it would be the deficiency of service on their part and now they cannot come to say that the complainants have not executed the same. It is also not in dispute that a sum of Rs.30,000/- was retained for the purpose of insurance. But there was no clarification why it was not disbursed to the complainant at the time of granting loan except for if it is not retained for the purpose of insurance premium. In those circumstances we are of the view that the opposite party are liable for the deficiency of service in not taking the insurance for the security of loan in spite of the amount retained for the purpose of the same and since one of the borrower died as per the terms and conditions of the agreement for the waiver of 50% of the loan amount by the deceased he is entitled. The only modification made by the State Commission, in the order of the District Forum, is that the relief to the complainant is reduced from Rs.2,60,500/- i.e. 50% of the loan amount to Rs. 2,20,089/-, being the remaining balance of the loan amount. 5. We have carefully perused the records and heard Mr. S. L. Gupta Advocate for the revision petitioner. One of the grounds raised by the petitioner is that non-debit of the amount of premium was itself a notice to the borrower that the policy has not been subscribed. But the revision petition does not state when exactly the fact of non-debit was communicated to the borrower. List of documents produced before the District Forum includes (other than the letter of loan sanction) only one letter from the Bank to the complainant. This letter of 5.1.2008 was written to the complainant after the death of her husband. Even this letter does not show if non-debit of premium had been communicated to the complainant any time between the sanction of the loan on 6.10.2005 and death of her husband on 6.11.2007. We therefore, reject it as a factually incorrect argument. 6. In para 2 (I) of the revision petitioner, it is clearly accepted that additional amount was sanctioned, raising the loan amount to Rs.5.21 lakhs, for the purpose of premium required for the SBI Life policy. This needs to be read with the stipulation in clause 8 of the letter of loan sanction. In very unambiguous terms, clause 8 requires the loan to be covered by SBI Life Surakasha Group Insurance Scheme. It needs further to be read with clause 10 of the loan sanction document. Again, in very unambiguous terms, it is stipulated that letter in respect of SBI Life, together with certain other documents, was required to be executed, before disbursement of the loan amount. Under clause 14, the loan sanction letter specified that disbursal, both to the builder /vendor and towards premium for SBI Life, would be made directly by the bank. From these clauses it becomes amply clear that the revision petitioner/OP defaulted on two critical counts a. It disbursed the loan amount, in violation of the condition in clause 10. b. It failed to discharge its obligation under clause 14 by not making direct remittance of insurance premium, after having sanctioned the requisite additional loan amount for it. 7. In the above background, we have no hesitation in holding that the order of the Tamil Nadu State Commission is based on true and correct assessment of the evidence on record. The revision petitioner has raised grounds, which are factually incorrect and in direct conflict with its own basic document i.e. the letter of sanction of loan to the Complainant and her husband. 8. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed and the impugned order of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No.32/2009 is confirmed. Further, considering the conduct of the revision petitioner and the resultant inconvenience, delay and harassment suffered by the Complainant, we are of the view that the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/, awarded by the State Commission, will be disproportionately low and substantively inadequate. Therefore, while dismissing the revision petition, we also deem it appropriate to enhance the compensation amount to Rs.40,000/-. The entire order shall be implemented in a period of three months, failing which the whole amount shall carry interest at 9% for the period of delay. | |
