A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
FA 124/2008 against C. C. No. 83/2007 on the file of the
District Forum II, Hyderabad
Between :
Mohammed Sultan, S/o Late SK. Mahboob Ali
Age 48 years, R/o 1-19-34, Baba Sai Apartments,
Flat no. 103, Rasulpura, Begumpet,
Hyderabad - 500 016 .. Appellant/complainant
And
1. ICICI Bank Ltd
215, Free Press House, Nariman Point
Mumbai.
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Ltd.
6-3-352, Osman Plaza, 3rd Floor
No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500034
..Respondent/opposite party
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. V. K. Sanghi.
Counsel for the Respondents : R1 served
D. Sri Jyothi Rao for R-2.
Coram ; Sri Syed Abdullah … Hon’ble Member
And
Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao… Hon’ble Member
Tuesday, the Twenty Sixth Day of July, Two Thousand Ten
Oral Order : ( As per Sri Syed Abdullah, Hon’ble Member )
*******
Being not satisfied with the quantum of relief granted in CC 83/2007 by the District Forum II, Hyderabad, this appeal is filed to order payment of Rs.29,000/- in stead of Rs.8,636/- as ordered with interest there on and costs.
The facts of the case are that the complainant had applied for Housing loan and the first opposite party had sanctioned a loan amount of Rs.1,67,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.20,589/- was deducted towards Insurance premium for the policy to be issued by the 2nd opposite party Insurance company. The complainant informed to the 2nd opposite party for returning excess amount from out of the insurance premium amount in respect of the policy. The concerned failed to respond and their act or omission amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence prayed to direct payment of Rs.29,000/- with interest @ 18% pa from 7.7.2006 till the date of realization with additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and costs.
The first opposite party remained absent.
The second opposite party filed its version denying the allegations of deficiency in service. It is stated that the complainant was under the wrongful impression that the first opposite party bank and the second opposite party Insurance Company are one and the same. In fact, these organizations are different entities having its separate business. In the event of payment of premium by the insured by opting for policy and if any deficiency is committed relating to the policy , 2nd opposite party is answerable for it.
The complainant along with evidence affidavit filed Ex. A-1 to A-10. The contesting 2nd opposite party has not filed any documents.
After going through the evidence on record, the District Forum passed an order against the first opposite party holding that a sum of Rs.8,636/- to be paid by the 1st opposite party along with compensation of Rs.2000/- and costs of Rs.1000/-.
The appellant/complainant in its appeal grounds raised the contention that the District Forum failed to take into consideration that the original relief of Rs.8.636/- was got amended as per the orders in IA 243/2007 for granting relief of Rs.29,000/- and yet the said amount was not allowed, as such, prayed to award the said amount.
During hearing of the appeal, the advocate for Respondent No. 1 filed vakalat and later has represented that OP. 1 is not contacting him. For the reasons best known the 1st opposite party has not contested the case in the District Forum and during appeal the opposite party no. 1 had engaged an advocate but not come forward to put forth the defence. So the matter is disposed on merits.
Undisputedly, original relief was sought for Rs.8,636/- with interest at 18% per month from 07.07.2006 till the date of realization but later the appellant/complainant filed IA 243/2007 to amend the relief portion seeking relief for a sum of Rs.29,000/- with interest at 24% which was allowed and amendment was carried out.
Point for consideration is, whether the appellant/complainant is entitled for enhancement of the amount as claimed by him ?
We have gone through the evidence on record and on a reappraisal of the factual aspects and evidence, we arrive at the following conclusion. Ex. A-3 is the letter addressed by the 1st opposite party to the appellant/complainant which shows that a sum of Rs.1,67,000/- was sanctioned on 7th July, 2006 towards house loan. Ex. A-5 is the Insurance Policy issued by the second opposite party in which it is mentioned that the policy was issued for Rs. 5 lakhs collecting premium of Rs.12,908/- inclusive of service tax etc. while so, Ex.A-7 is the copy of the account issued by the 1st opposite party bank in the name of the complainant showing that a sum of rs.29,000/- was paid towards insurance amount from out of Rs.1,67,000/- sanctioned loan and thereby the loanee had to repay the amount in 156 instalments @ Rs.2017/- per month for EMI. Ex.A-9 and A-10 are the letters addressed by the complainant through his advocate to both opposite parties informing them to produce acknowledgements/receipts in token of payment of Rs.29,000/- which was paid through cheque bearing No. 917370 dated 07.07.2016. Those letters were sent through courier service and the courier receipts are also field.
On a scrutiny of the documentary evidence on record it is very clear that the 1st opposite party bank out of the sanctioned loan amount of Rs.1,67,000/- had paid a sum of Rs.20,589/- towards insurance premium but the actual premium payable on the policy issued was only Rs.12,908/-. Out of Rs.1,67,000/- less deducting a sum of Rs.29,000/-, the complainant was paid with a sum of Rs.1,37,775/- as is evident from Ex. A-4. It appears that a sum of Rs.225/- was paid less from out of payment of Rs.1,38,000/-. In Ex. A-7 statement the 1st opposite party bank had deducted a sum of Rs.225/- since the cheque issued by the complainant had bounced, so a sum of Rs.225/- was deducted. Thus, it is very much clear that the 1st opposite party had paid the loan amount of Rs.1,37,775/- after deducting Rs.225/- and premium charges of Rs.29,000/-. Though the second opposite party had received a sum of Rs.29,000/- it has adjusted only Rs.12,908/- towards premium in respect of the policy and the remaining amount of Rs.16,092/- was neither accounted for nor retuned back to the policy holder. The 2nd opposite party has to account for a sum of Rs.16,092/- . Though the second opposite party filed its version has not explained as to how Rs.29,000/- was adjusted in respect of issuance of the policy. It is seen that the District Forum, though, allowed the amendment has failed to consider that the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.16,092/- payable by the 2nd opposite party Insurance company. It is not known why both the opposite parties 1 and 2 have not produced their acknowledgement/receipt in respect of payment of Rs.29,000/-. Even though, the 2nd opposite party has not produced acknowledgment in respect of payment of Rs.29,000/- which was deducted from out of sanctioned amount, still, from Ex. A3, A4 and A5 it is clear that the premium payable on the policy is only Rs.12,908/- but a sum of Rs.29,000/- was sent by the first opposite party to the second opposite party. The 1st opposite party ought to have addressed a letter to the 2nd opposite party for refund of the amount but no steps were taken all the while even after filing of the complaint. Both opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to refund a sum of Rs.16,092/- which was deducted in excess from the sanctioned amount with bank rate of interest at 9% pa. So also, they are liable to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- as ordered by the District Forum.
In the result, the appeal is allowed modifying the order of the District Forum directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.16,092/- with joint and several liability with interest there on from 07.07.2006 till the date of payment. The relief of compensation and costs as awarded is confirmed.
Sd/-MEMBER
Sd/-MEMBER
DATED : 26 .07.2010.
