PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 31st day of December 2011
Filed on : 20-07-2010
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member. Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No.404/2010
Between
Shaila Jain, W/o. Late N.P. Jain, : Complainant
Palackamattathil house, (By Adv. Tom Joseph, Court
Kunnackal P.O., Road, Muvattupuzha)
Muvattupuzha.
And
1. The Managing Director, : Opposite parties
State Bank of Travancore, (Absent)
Poojappura,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Manager, (By Adv. George Kuruvilla,
Branch Office, Kolenchery, Ernakulam)
State Bank of Travancore,
Muvattupuzha.
O R D E R
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant and her husband had jointly availed a housing loan from the 2nd opposite party. The 2nd opposite party had asked the complainant and her husband to take a SBT life insurance policy so as to indemnify the re payment of loan amount in the event of the death of the borrowers. Accordingly a sum of Rs. 33,300/- was retained by the 2nd opposite party towards insurance premium and only disbursed Rs. 4,50,000/- out of the sanctioned loan amount Rs. 4,83,300/-. The complainant and her husband had paid the EMI Rs. 5,010/- promptly till April 2008. The Complainant’s husband met with an accident on 23-04-2008 and he died on 30-06-2008. Hence there occurred break in the repayment for three months. The EMI for 3 months was paid in September 2008. As per the insurance policy conditions, the complainant need not pay the future EMI’s of the loan. But due to the pressure from the 2nd opposite party she paid Rs. 79,000/- till March 2010. The complainant approached the 2nd opposite party for getting the insurance policy benefits. But he rejected the request stating that they omitted to transfer the insurance premium amount to the insurance company. Thereafter, the matter was brought to the notice of the first opposite party. But no reply was given to the complainant till the date. The omission on their part to transfer the amount retained towards insurance premium to the insurance company amounts to deficiency of service. The opposite parties are duty bound to waive the future EMI’s from 6/2008 onwards i.e. after the death of the complainant’s husband. Hence the complainant is entitled for the refund of Rs. 79,000/- collected from her. The complainant approaches this Forum seeking direction against the opposite parties to waive the future EMI’s from 6/2008 onwards and also to get refund of Rs. 79,000/- along with interest and costs of the proceedings.
2. Version of the 2nd opposite party.
The complaint is bad for non joinder as well as misjoinder of necessary parties. There is no relationship of consumer with the opposite party with regard to the matter submitted in the complaint. The complainant is not even aware as to from which branch the loan facility was availed. The Moovattupuzha branch had actually disbursed the loan to the complainant and her husband. As part of the procedure adopted by the bank the 2nd opposite party informed the complainant and her husband about the facility of taking a life insurance policy also at the time of availing the loan. It was also informed that taking of insurance policy is only optional. The complainant and her husband did not opt the same and did not authorize the opposite party to take any insurance policy. The complainant was only informed about the balance outstanding to be repaid by her towards the loan account and the complainant herself remitted the said amount of Rs. 79,000/-, to regularize the account. No insurance policy was found to be taken by the complainant and her husband from any insurance company, the 2nd opposite party did not transfer the insurance premium amount of Rs. 33,300/- to any insurance company and hence it cannot amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party. The complainant is one of the co-borrowers in the housing loan and she is duty bound to remit the EMI in terms of the agreement. Hence the complainant is not entitled for a direction to the 2nd opposite party to waive the EMI.
3. The complainant and the 2nd opposite party appeared through counsel. Despite service of notice from this forum the 1st opposite party remained absent. The complainant was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 was marked on the complainant’s side. Ext. B1 was marked on the side of the 2nd opposite party. Both sides filed argument notes. We have heard the respective counsel for both sides.
4. The points that arose for determination are as follows:
(i) Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs.
79,000/- from the opposite parties?
ii) Costs of the proceedings
5. Points Nos. i & ii. The case of the complainant is that she along with her husband had jointly availed a housing loan from the 2nd opposite party. According to the complainant along with the loan they had taken SBT life Insurance policy. As per the insurance policy if the death of the borrower take place in that case they need not pay the further EMI’s in the loan account. However after the death of the complainant’s husband the opposite parties demanded the outstanding amount in the loan account and she remitted Rs. 79,000/- towards EMI dues. The opposite parties are not ready to refund the said amount. According to the complainant the amount transferred to the insurance premium from the sanctioned loan amount is evident from Ext. A1 pass book. The 2nd opposite party contented that the complainant and her husband did not opt the insurance policy. Hence the opposite party has not transferred any amount towards insurance premium from the sanctioned loan amount.
The contention of the 2nd opposite party that the complaint is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary party is unsustainable since the 1st opposite party, is the Managing Director of the State Bank of Travancore is in the party array.
Ext. A1 are the copy of savings pass book of the complainant and the specifications of the insurance. On perusal of Ext. A1 specifications it is specifically mentioned that “AVAILABLE SBI LIFE INSURANCE” the benefits of policy and attractions of the same. According to the complainant the 2nd opposite party sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 4,83,300/-. however disbursed only Rs. 4,50,000/-. The remaining amount of Rs. 33,300/- was retained by he 2nd opposite party towards insurance premium. In Ext. A1 pass book goes to show that the loan amount was disbursed by three instalments. The instalment amounts are Rs. 1,35,000/-, Rs. 1,80,000/- and 1,35,000/- and totaling Rs. 4,50,000/- Ext. B1 sanction letter would show that the 2nd opposite party has sanctioned Rs. 4,83,300/- as loan amount. The 2nd opposite party vehemently denied that they haven’t retained Rs. 33,300/- for the purpose of insurance premium. But they did not adduce any evidence in this Forum to substantiate that they had disbursed the entire sanctioned amount to the complainant. The opposite parties at least ought to have produced A/C statement pertaining to the loan account of the complainant. No evidence is before us to show that the opposite parties duly informed the complainant and her husband that taking insurance policy is optional. The learned counsel for the complainant relied in a decision rendered by Hon’ble National Commission in SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Asha Dixit & ANR. 1 (2011) CPJ 81 (NC) The Hon’ble National Commission found that is responsible for, not completing documentation with regard to the insurance premium and the bank is liable to indemnify the loss. In the instant case though the 2nd opposite party collected the insurance premium from the complainant they failed to avail insurance policy in spite of receipt of the premium. The above conduct of the 2nd opposite party amounts to deficiency in their service.
In view of the above we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to refund the amount of Rs. 79,000/- received as EMI after the death of the complainant’s husband to the complainant with interest. We are not ordering any costs since we have already ordered refund of the amount with interest.
6. Accordingly, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the opposite parties shall jointly and severally refund Rs. 79,000/- to the complainant with 12% interest p.a. from the date of complaint till realization.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31st day of December 2011
Sd/-
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Sd/-
A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
Paul Gomez, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Copy of savings bank pass book
Opposite party’s Exhibits :
Ext. B1 : Copy of sanction letter
dt. 22/03/2006
Depositions:
PW1 : Shaila Jain
