DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No. 46 of 6.2.2019

                                      Decided on:            8.2.2023

Amrinder Singh son of Late Iqbal Singh, resident of House No.904/9, Tafazalpura, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1. The Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.
2. The Regional Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, SCO 120, 6^th Floor, Feroz Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.
3. Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, Regd. Office 27, BKC, C27, G Block Bandra Kurla, Complex Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

Complaint under the Consumer Protection Act

QUORUM

                                      Hon’ble Mr.S.K.Aggarwal, President

                                      Hon’ble Mr.G.S.Nagi,Member         

PRESENT:                   Sh.K.S.Saini, counsel for complainant.

                             Sh.Vikas Mittal, counsel for OPs.

 ORDER                                          

1. The instant complaint is filed by Amrinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against Branch Manager, Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited and others (hereinafter referred to as the OP/s) under the Consumer Protection Act (for short the Act).
2. The averments of the complainant are as follows:

That Late Iqbal Singh father of complainant approached OP No.1 for business loan in the month of July, 2018 for his firm “Durga Ajeet Jewellers”, Qila Chowk, Patiala and submitted his documents to avail the loan. The loan was sanctioned by OP No.1 on 6.7.2018 amounting to Rs.7,50,000/- but Rs.5,30,467/- were disbursed on 12.7.2018 in the a/c No.0312728258 maintained in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited in the name of Late Iqbal Singh. The father of the complainant late Iqbal Singh enquired from OP No.1 about the disbursement of loan amount of Rs.5,30,467/- who replied that an insurance policy has been issued favour of complainant’s father after the deduction of premium of policy, PF, other expenses credited in the account of complainant’s father firm but till today complainant or his father did not receive any insurance policy even though they paid the installment of Rs.19828/- from the month of August,2018 to December,2018. Thereafter father of the complainant namely Iqbal Singh died on 13.9.2018.Complainant gave information in this regard to OP No.1 and also requested for the waiver of loan amount but OP No.1 refused to do so stating that no insurance policy was issued in favour of Late Iqbal Singh by them instead the same has been issued in the name of Amrinder Singh i.e. complainant. Due to wrongful acts of the OPs, the complainant suffered great financial loss. There is also deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, as a result of which complainant suffered mental agony, tension, harassment and inconvenience. Consequently, prayer has been made for acceptance of the complaint.

3. Upon notice, OPs appeared through counsel and filed` written statement having raised certain preliminary objections. It is pleaded that late Iqbal Singh alongwith his son had taken loan facility from OP No.1 vide loan agreement No.CSG 152840740 and OP No.1 sanctioned an amount of Rs.5,50,000/- as the business loan to be repaid jointly in 36 equated monthly installments of Rs.19,829/- each. At the time of sanctioning loan facility age of complainant’s father was 59 years and as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy the maximum age for the person should be upto 55 years, so the insurance policy was issued in the name of the complainant. Being guarantor and legal heir of late Iqbal Singh he is liable to pay the entire loan amount pending against him.
4. On merits, it is denied that OP No.1 sanctioned loan to the complainant on 6.7.2018 amounting to Rs.7,50,000/- vide loan account No.CSG152840740 but the amount of loan was disbursed as Rs.5,30,467/- on 12.7.2018 in the account No.0312728258 of  complainant’s father firm maintained in Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited. It is submitted that loan amount sanctioned was of Rs.5,50,000/- and the complainant from the day of taking the loan knew the fact that the insurance policy is in his name. It is alleged that Amrinder Singh complainant is co-applicant/guarantor in the loan. Both the complainant and his father have signed the loan agreement after admitting the terms and conditions of the loan agreement. As the father of the complainant was not fallen into the eligibility criteria so the policy was got issued by the complainant and his father in the name of the complainant only by signing the assignment form. There is no point to waive off the loan amount after the death of complainant’s father as the insurance policy was in the name of the complainant and not in the name of his father and an amount of Rs.4,96,541.59 is outstanding in the loan account as on 22.1.2019.There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. After denying all other averments made in the complaint, the OPs have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
5. In order to prove the case, ld. counsel for the complainant has furnished affidavit of the complainant,Ex.CA, copy of sanction letter,Ex.C1, copy of statement of account, Ex.C2, copy of death certificate,Ex.C3 and closed the evidence. By way of additional evidence, copy of PAN card of Iqbal Singh has also been tendered by the ld. counsel for the complainant.
6. In rebuttal, ld. counsel for OPs has tendered in evidence, Ex.OPA affidavit of Sunny Madaan, Authorized Representative of OPs, Ex.OP1 copy of assignment form, Ex.OP2 copy of insurance schedule, Ex.OP3 copy of group assure tender synopsis, Ex.OP4 copy of statement of account and closed the evidence.No rebuttal evidence has been lead by the OPs.
7. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case, carefully.
8. From the perusal of the documents produced on record by the parties, it transpires that sanction letter Ex.C1 for business loan of Rs.7,50,000/- was issued by the OPs in the name of  father of the complainant. However, the loan was sanctioned for an amount of Rs.5,50,000/-,this fact is admitted by both the parties. An amount of Rs.5,30,467/-was disbursed in the account No.0312728258 on 12.7.2018, running in the name of firm M/s Durga Ajit Jewellers, the same was being operated by Iqbal Singh, father of the complainant. The account statement in this regard is Ex.C2.
9. It is admitted fact that loan was disbursed to the firm M/s Durga Ajeet Jewellers, (Ex.C2) whose sole proprietor was Iqbal Singh as per the GST registration certificate bearing No.03ANBPS2426CIZL, placed on record by the complainant during arguments. During pendency of the said loan, Iqbal Singh, father of the complainant to whom said loan was disbursed died on 13.9.2018.The death certificate of Iqbal Singh is Ex.C3. When the complainant approached the OPs to settle the loan account against the insurance which was made at the time of disbursal of the loan, due to death of his father, the same was repudiated by the OPs on the ground that it was the complainant who was insured and not his father to whom the loan had been disbursed. The OPs placed on record an assignment form for the same which is Ex.OP1.
10. In reply to the complaint on merits, in para no.3, the OPs has stated that since the age of father of the complainant, at the time of disbursal of the loan was 59 years, the policy could not be issued in the name of father of the complainant because as per eligibility criteria the maximum age for the person to avail the insurance policy is 55 years. The complainant had produced the PAN card, Ex.C4 of his father Iqbal Singh wherein date of birth of Iqbal Singh is mentioned as 7.10.1968 and his age at the time of issuing the insurance policy was 50 years. As such this contention of the OPs is not tenable. We are of the opinion that the insurance policy should have been issued in the name of the father of the complainant to whom the loan amount was disbursed and as such unfair trade practice has been adopted by the OPs.
11. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed and the OPs are directed to settle the account of the complainant by treating the insurance policy deemed to have been issued in the name of Iqbal Singh, father of the complainant who was the actual beneficiary and the receiver of the loan amount within 30 days from the date of the receipt of certified copy of this order. Parties are left to bear their own costs.      
12.           The instant complaint could not be disposed of within stipulated period due to heavy rush of work, Covid protocol and for want of Quorum from long time.
85109252238716.  
85109252238717.  

                                              G.S.Nagi                           S.K.AGGARWAL

                                              Member                          President