BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST 2023

ORDER

SMT.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The complaint has been filed under Section 35 of C.P.Act (hereinafter referred as an Act) against the OP for the following reliefs against the OP:-
   1. Direct the OP1 to close the loan agreement/account No.173401310761604 and not to demand any amount which is due from 19.04.2021(from the day of complainant No.2 death)

Or

Direct the OP2 to pay the remaining amount which is due from 19.04.2021 (from the day of complainant No.2 death) to close the loan agreement/account No.173401310761604 held with the OP1.

2. Direct the OP1 to return the original documents to complainant NO.1 which are mortgaged in the loan agreement No.173401310761604 for the property in Site No.7, Municipal No.7/7/1, Old Pid 22-28-7, New Pid No.22-28-7/1, 1^st Cross Road, SSI Area, CITB Layout, Rajajinagar, BBMP Ward No.108, Sri Ramamandira, Near SJR High School, Bengaluru 560 010.
3. Direct the OP1 to refund the EMI amount which are recovered from the complainant NO.1 from April-2021 (from the day of complainant No.2 death) with the interest of 11% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint.
4. Direct the OP1 as not to make any adverse remarks in CIBIL records of complainant NO.1 with respect to Loan agreement No.17340131761604.
5. Direct the OP1 to pay the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to complainant NO.1 for the service deficiency, unfair trade practices, agony and hardship caused.
6. Direct the OP1 to pay the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the legal heirs of complainant No.2 for the service deficiency, unfair trade practices, agony and hardship caused.
7. Direct the OP1 and/or OP2 to pay Rs.20,000/- as cost of this complaint proceedings.
8. Any other order as deem fit to be property in addition to above in the interest of justice.

2. The case set up by the complainant in brief is as under:-

The complainant No.1 with her husband deceased Rangaswamy A.R., have jointly formed the Pavithra Enterprise which is an entity involved in printing of labels paper card board print, gift boxes and printed covers to earn their livelihood with the means of self-employment.

3. The complainant No.1 and her husband have jointly availed loan of Rs.1,40,15,336/- from OP1 as working capital for the self-employment purpose with the security/mortgage of building presenting site No.7, CITB layout, Rajajinagar, Bangalore.  The deceased has left his wife the complainant No.1 and daughter complainant NO.3 and son complainant No.4 as his legal heirs.  
4. It is the main grievance of the complainant that the OP1 have deducted the insurance premium amount from the loan sanction amount in a capacity of authorized agent of OP2.  The same is not conveyed or transmitted completely to the OP2 who is an authority to issue the insurance coverage to the complainant. Omission of OP1 in improper service of insurance premium amounts to service deficiency and they are further liable to make good the loss caused due to their negligent act.
5. It is further case of the complainant that the OP1 and their officers have informed the complainants at the time of loan documentation that the complainant NO.1 and her husband deceased Rangaswamy will be covered under life and health insurance as the property mortgage is under joint name and the business is done by both of them and also the deceased Rangaswamy is co-applicant in the loan.  The OP1 further informed that all the servicing of insurance will be done by themselves.  The OP1 official has explained about the insurance product to the complainant and her husband, their offer includes fire and perils and also the life /health of the loan applicants, wherein it is stated that any time during the loan period if any of the applicant dies or contract serious diseases such as stroke cancer etc., then the entire pending EMI will be insured and loan applicants need not pay the further EMIs.  Any of such events happened with either of the applicants claim can be made and remaining EMI amount will be settled in lenders favour by insurance company.  
6. It is further case of the complainant that the amount of consideration paid as per sec 34(1) of C.P. Act 2019 Rs.5,15,336/- and amount for consideration paid for availing the loan service as per sec 34(1) of C.P. Act 2019 Rs.1,40,153/-.  The OP1 has sanctioned the loan of Rs.1,40,15,336/- vide sanction letter dated 31.12.2020.
7. It is further case of the complainant that the OP1 who is also authorized agent of OP2 have deducted an insurance premium of Rs.5,15,336/- towards the property insurance and risk insurance for the health and life of the first complainant and her husband late Rangaswamy.  The insurance has been availed as per the general terms and conditions. 
8. It is further case of the complainant that the complainant No.1 and her husband did not receive the risk coverage insurance document for their health and life even though the premium has been debited from the loan sanctioned amount. They have personally approached the OP1 in February 2021 as they did not receive the insurance document for health and life along with property insurance.  The Ops have assured that the sending of insurance document will take some time and all the procedures have been completed.  Due to covid 19 pandemic it is natural to anticipate the delay in processing.  The husband of the complainant NO.1 through email dated 01.02.2021 asking about the status of life and health insurance for the premium deducted loan amount.  the OP1 and 2 have replied on 04.02.2021 stating that the life and health of the applicants in the loan application has been approved and sent to OP2 and policy document will be delivered soon due to covid 19 restrictions the policy has been delayed.  However the insurance is covered for all the applicants from the day of premium is deducted.
9. It is further case of the complainant that her husband Rangaswamy succumbed to death on 19.04.2021 due to severe cardiac arrest. The event happened all of a sudden and there were no other symptoms or any medical event existed.  The husband of the complainant 1 when rested due to tiredness on the unfortunate morning of 19.04.2021 did not wake up and when rush to the doctor he was declared dead.  
10. It is further case of the complainant that there is no availability of risk coverage of the life and health insurance document of deceased Rangaswamy and complainant NO.1, have approached OP2 by giving details of loan account through email dated 28.09.2021 the email has been initially acknowledged and they have asked the details on the person deceased to initiate the claim process in their subsequent email communication dated 29.09.2021 to 19.10.2021.  The OP2 on their email dated 20.10.2021 confirmed that there is no insurance policy coverage is in force in the name of the deceased Rangaswamy and no insurance document is provided though it has been admitted that existence of insurance policy.  The complainant got issued a notice to provide the insurance policy document of health and life of the deceased Rangaswamy and to cover the existing loan due amount from the insurance from 19.04.2021 i.e., from the date of death of the deceased.  Even though the OP1 has received the notice, no response is provided.
11. If OP1 has serviced the insurance properly as per the promise made by them which is their obligation for the amount obtained or the OP2 have issued the insurance as per the proposal form if it is submitted by OP1 then the complainants will not be under the distress in the current circumstances. The insurance premium are paid and services are availed only for the unforeseen in circumstances that may arise in the life stages where no one can predict about tomorrow.  The omission of duties not adhering to the promises negligent behavior and deficiency of service of Ops have caused hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complainant has filed this complaint.
12. In response to the notice, OP1 and 2 appears through their counsel and files version.
13. It is the case of the OP1 that the complaint is not maintainable either on law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed.  The complainant filed vexatious, frivolous complaint suppressing all material facts and misleading this Hon’ble Commission in order to get relief in their favour.
14. The OP1 has admitted that the proprietor of M/s Pavithra Enterprises, has applied for loan with this OP1 and after verification of the documents submitted by the complainant loan has been disbursed to the tune of Rs.1,40,50,336/-.  The complainant NO.1 executed a loan agreement and her husband complainant No.2 the deceased Rangaswamy is a co-borrower.
15. It is further case of the OP1 that as a process an insurance premium of Rs.5,15,336/- deducted from the sanctioned amount and paid to the OP2 and provided a sum insured for an amount of Rs.67,50,000/- in favour of the complainant NO.1. In support of the same an insurance policy was issued for the period 31.12.2020 to 30.12.2025.  The deceased co-borrower 2 is nominated as nominee to the complainant as the insured complainant NO.1 is alive and co-borrower No.2 late.Rangaswamy is only a nominee therefore the complainant is not entitled for any of the claim as prayed, hence the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  
16. It is the case of the OP2 that the present complaint is not maintainable either on legal grounds or on factual basis the complainant is guilty of suppressing material and pertinent facts relevant for adjudication of the present complaint apart from filing a vexatious and frivolous complaint. The present complaint deserves to be dismissed on this ground itself.
17. It is further case of the OP2 that the complaint is barred by jurisdiction where the loan amount has mentioned by the complainant is specified as Rs.1,40,15,336/- and the pecuniary jurisdiction of this commission is upto 50 lakhs only paid as consideration.  Further for the purpose of consideration amount sanctioned as loan by the OP1 to the complainant has to be taken into consideration and hence the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission.  Hence the complaint is not maintainable in law nor on facts and it is liable to be dismissed.
18. It is further case of the OP2 that there has been no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of this OP in dealing with the concerned policy.  It is an established principal of law that the machinery of law cannot be invoked based on mere conjectures, the policy of insurance is the evidence of the terms of the agreement between the insured and the insurer. The promise of insurer to indemnify the assured is subject to the terms and conditions and exception to the policy.
19. It is the case of the OP2 that they have issued the policy insured in the name of the complainant and the said policy is a group personal accident coverage issued to the loan holder of OP1. Under the said policy the complainant has availed the loan facility and the liability of this OP if any is limited to the terms and conditions of the policy insurance. The complainant has obtained standard fire and pearl insurance policy and the said policy is obtained for the building/premises to protect from any earthquake, damages to the building/premises only and the liability of this OP if any is limited to the terms and conditions of the policy.  The complainant has neither submitted any claim form nor any claim documents along with insurance policy in the absence of which this OP2 neither can register the claim of the complainant nor process any further regarding the same.  If the complainant has submitted any claim form to this OP with all the required documents, then this OP shall process and decide the same as per the policy terms and conditions.  The present policy stands in the name of the complainant herself and she herself is the insured under the said policy and not her husband Rangaswamy.  Hence the insured herself cannot claim for death of her husband. The complaint is a premature complaint and this OP has neither committed any deficiency of service nor adopted any unfair trade practice.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Therefore the OP2 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
20. The complainants have filed their separate affidavit evidence and relies on 26 documents.  Affidavit evidence of official of OP2 has been filed and OP relies on 02 documents and Affidavit evidence of official of OP2 has been filed and OP1 relies on 05 documents.
21. Heard the arguments of advocate for both the parties. Perused the written arguments.
22. The following points arise for our consideration as are:-

1. Whether the complainant proves deficiency of service on the part of OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to relief mentioned in the complaint?
3. What order?

23. Our answers to the above points are as under:

Point No.1:  Affirmative

Point No.2: Affirmative in part

Point No.3: As per final orders

REASONS

24. Point No.1 AND 2: These two points are inter related and hence they have taken for common discussion.  We have perused the allegations made in the complaint, version, affidavit evidence and written arguments and documents filed by both the parties.
25. It is the main objection raised by the Ops that, this Commission has no pecuniary jurisdiction to decide this matter.  The loan amount as mentioned by the complainant is specified as Rs.1,40,15,336/- and the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission is upto fifty lakhs only paid as consideration and further for the purpose of consideration amount sanctioned as loan by the OP1 to the complainant has to be taken into consideration and hence this complaint is not maintainable before this commission and is liable to be dismissed.
26. On the other hand, it is the contention taken by the complainant that the pecuniary jurisdiction under the C.P.Act 2019 to be determined by the service fee paid and not based on the total relief claimed.  The complainant also relied on the Judgement delivered by Hon’ble NCDRC relating to the pecuniary jurisdiction. The complainant relied on the judgement of Hon’ble NCDRC in deciding the jurisdiction as in the case of

(M/s. Pyaridevi Chabiraj Steels Pvt. Ltd., -vs- National Insurance Company Ltd., & others, CC No.833/2020) which was passed in the light of amended Consumer Protection Act 2019 that the pecuniary jurisdiction of a competent consumer commission is to be determined by the values of goods or service paid as consideration and not by the value of goods or services purchased.

Even though the relief claimed is in crores, the pecuniary jurisdiction is decided only on the amount paid for fee for insurance and loan processing which is less than 10 lakhs rupees.

27. Even though the relief claimed is in crores the pecuniary jurisdiction is decided only on the amount paid for fee for insurance and loan processing which is less than 10 lakhs rupees.
28. It is further case of the complainant that the amount in dispute which is clearly stated in para 10 of the Chief evidence of the complainant NO.1 is Rs.5,15,336/-which is the amount paid towards the insurance which is the subject matter of dispute. The complaint is on the omission of service which they are intended to be performed in servicing of loan which comes under sec 85 of the C.P. Act 2019.  For the processing of loan the amount collected is Rs.1,40,153/-.  The amount is collected as processing fee and it is the process the loan documentation which includes the processing of insurance as well which is being fault. The complainant has claimed the relief to direct the OP1 to close the loan agreement or to direct the OP2 to pay the remaining loan amount due from 19,04.2021 to close the loan account and further direct the OP1 to return the original documents to the complainant and to refund the EMI amount which are recovered from the complainant NO.1 from April 2021 from the date of death of second complainant with interest and also for direction to the OP1 not to make any adverse remarks in CIBIL record and for compensation and cost.
29. The main grievance of the complainant is that the first complainant and her husband have jointly formed the Pavithra Enterprises and they have jointly availed the loan. The main grievance of the complainant is that the OP1 had deducted the premium amount from the loan sanction amount of Rs.5,15,336/- stating that the risk of the complainant NO.1 and her husband deceased Rangaswamy will be covered under life and health insurance as the property mortgaged is under joint name and the business is done by both of them and the deceased Rangaswamy is co-applicant in the loan.  As per document No.3 the insurance amount deducted by the OP1 is Rs.5,15,336/-.
30. It is clear from the judgement passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the above referred case that the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined by value of goods or service paid as consideration and not by the value of the goods or services purchased.
31. In this complaint the complainant is only claiming the insurance from the Ops.  The premium paid by the complainants is only Rs.5,15,336/-. Under these circumstances when the insurance amount paid by the complainant is only Rs.5,15,336/- which is less than Rs.50,00,000/- and hence this Commission has got pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
32. It is undisputed fact the complainant and her deceased husband being the joint owners of the Pavithra Enterprise have jointly availed the loan of Rs.1,40,15,336/- from the OP1 as working capital for the self employment purpose. The OP1 have deducted the insurance premium amount from the loan sanction amount in the capacity of authorized agent of OP2. The same is not conveyed or transmitted completely to the OP2 who is an authority to issue insurance coverage to the complainant.  The omission of OP1 in improper service of insurance premium amounts to deficiency of service and they are further liable to make good for loss caused to the complainant due to their negligent act.
33. It is the specific contention taken by the complainant that the OP1 and their officers have informed the complainant at the time of loan documentation that both complainant NO.1 and deceased husband Rangaswamy will be covered under life and health insurance as the property mortgaged is under joint name and the business is done by both of them and also the deceased Rangawamy is a co-applicant in the loan.
34. The OP1 further informed to the complainants that all the servicing of insurance will be done by themselves.  The OP1 official also explained about the insurance product to the complainant and her husband. Their offer includes fire and perils and also the life/health of the loan applicants. Wherein it is stated that any time during the loan period if any of the applicant dies or contract serious disease such as stroke, cancer etc., then the entire pending EMI will be insured and the loan applicants need not pay the further EMIs. Any of such events happened with either of the applicants claim can be made and the remaining amount will be settled in lenders favour by the insurance company. As per their assurance the OP1 has also deducted Rs.5,15,336/- in the sanction loan amount of Rs.1,40,15,336/- vide sanction letter dated 31.12.2020.  The OP1 who is authorized agent of OP2 have deducted the insurance premium of Rs.5,15,336/- towards the property insurance and risk insurance for the health and life of the first complainant and her husband late Rangaswamy.  
35. The complainant No.1 and her husband Rangaswamy have not received the risk coverage insurance for their health and life even though the premium has been debited from the loan sanctioned amount. They have personally approached OP1 in February 2021 as they did not receive the insurance document for health and life along with property insurance. At that time the OP have assured that the sending of the insurance documents will take some time and all the procedure have been completed. Due to covid 19 pandemic it is natural to anticipate the delay in processing. The husband of the complainant deceased Rangaswamy through email dated 01.02.2021 asked the OP1 about the status of the life and health insurance for the premium deducted loan amount the OP1 and 2 have replied on 04.02.2021 stating that life and health of the applicants in the loan application has been approved and sent to OP2 and the policy document will be delivered soon and due to covid 19 restrictions the policy has been delayed.  However the insurance is covered for all the applicants from the date of premium is deducted.
36. The husband of the complainant NO.1 Rangaswamy succumbed to the death on 19.04.2021 due to severe cardiac arrest. After the enquiry the OP1 have informed her that there is no availability of the risk coverage and health insurance document of deceased Rangaswamy and when the complainant NO.1 have approached the OP2 they have confirmed on 20.12.2021 that there is no insurance policy coverage in force in the name of the deceased Rangawamy and no insurance document is provided though it has been admitted that the existence of insurance policy. If OP1 has serviced the insurance properly as per the promise made by them which is their obligation for the amount obtained or the OP2 have issued the insurance as per the proposal form if it is submitted by OP1. Then the complainants will not be under the distress under the current circumstances.
37. On the other hand the contention taken by the OP1 is that the deceased was not covered under the policy and the policy stands in the name of the complainant NO.1 Manjula R, who is alive and hence complainant is not entitled for any relief. 
38. It is also the case of OP2 that the complaint is a premature and there is no claim form submitted on death of Mr.Rangaswamy. all the email communications have been made to OP2 to lodge the claim. If the complainants are not satisfied with the insurance policy or insurance is not as per the proposal have 15 days time from the date of receipt of the insurance copy to decline or suggest alteration or correction for the same.  When these complainants have not at all received the insurance policy and OP1 has agreed that the insurance is covered from the date of loan amount and premium deduction and they have waited further due to covid 19 related delays.  OP1 and 2 have specifically denied all the contention taken by the complainants except the fact that the complainant and her husband deceased Rangswamy have borrowed the loan amount jointly and they have also submitted about the premium deducted in the loan sanction amount. But the OP1 taken the contention that the insurance is covered for the life and health of the first complainant and it is not covered the life and health of her husband Rangsaswamy.
39. In order to prove their contention the complainant NO.1 to 3 have filed their affidavit evidence and they have also got marked document No.1 to 26.  The complainants have filed their affidavit reiterated all the allegations made in the complaint.
40. It is clear from Ex.C3 loan agreement execution document that the OP1 has deducted an amount of Rs.5,15,336/- on 31.12.2020.  The Ex.P4 discloses the insurance premium deduction by OP1 and EMI payments. The document NO.5 is the fire and perils policy issued by OP2 showing the joint names of the complainant NO1 and her husband Rangaswamy A.R., which is forwarded by OP1. It is also clear from the document NO.6 that the deceased Rangaswamy had sent an email on 01.02.2021 to OP1 asking about the life and health insurance policy and the document NO.7 is the reply given by the OP1 stating that lap loan customers of OP1 are covered under the ICICI Lombard group secured mind policy No.4080/182725957/00/000. In view of covid 19 pandemic there will be delay in receiving the policy document and further assured that the coverage starts from date of premium amount. The OP1 during the processing of the loan assured the complainant and her husband that life insurance will cover the liability on payment of pending EMI in case of death of the loan applicants. It is also clear from the document NO.C19 that the assurance given in the filing of proposal form that the entire loan amount is insured. The OP1 has not mentioned that if the sum insured differs from the loan sanction amount please mention the same. The OP1 has not mentioned that there is a difference in the sum insured and the loan sanction amount. Under these circumstances it is clear that the entire loan amount borrowed by complainant No.1 and her husband deceased Rangaswamy is insured.
41. It is also clear from the email communication referred above as document No.6 and 7 due to delay the OP1 and 2 have not at all sent the insurance document to the complainant and her husband as per the assurance given by the OP1 and 2 it is presumed that both the co applicants of the loan are covered under the document No.1Ex.18 and 19.  When the property was also stood in the joint name of the complainant and her husband and the business is also managed by husband of the complainant Rangaswamy it is the duty on the part of OP1 to perform the insurance to the deceased Rangaswamy.  When the complainant has approached the OP2 after the death of her husband on 1904.2021 to recover the balance loan amount through insurance was refused by OP2 through document No.11. it is also clear that the OP1 has not at all delivered the insurance documents to the complainants and her deceased husband through any mode of service and they have also not at all produced any document to show that the complainant have received the policy documents. As per the loan sanction letter sec 11 it is clear that the availment of the insurance facility is mandatory.
42. Even though the OP1 have not produced any documents to disprove the email communication assurance given by them they have simply denied the evidence of the complainant and also the fact. The contention taken by the OP1 that the deceased Rangaswamy did not avail the insurance is contrary to their own E-mail statements assurance given in the documents No.C6 and C7 and the existence of filing of insurance proposal form document No.C18 and C19.
43. The OP1 further taken the contention that the insurance is not mandatory and it is contrary to the very loan sanction letter dated 31.12.2020. As per the terms of section 11 the insurance is mandatory for the loan applicants. When the OP1 has failed to deliver the insurance document the complainant and her husband were under the impression that the OP1 has covered both of them as per their assurance and as per section 11 of the loan sanction letter. When the complainant and her husband the deceased Rangaswamy have jointly borrowed the loan and both are co-borrowers and also they have mortgaged property stood in the joint name of the complainant and the deceased it is clear that the deceased is the main person who was managing the business. Under these circumstances the say of OP1 that the deceased is not the insured and the insurance was not taken in his name cannot be accepted.
44. In addition to this the OP2 has admitted the existence of insurance relationship with OP1 and its loan customers. When this is admitted all the required documents about deceased Rangaswamy is available with OP1 and the insurance stands in favour of deceased. When the complainants have exhausted all the communications and liaison with the OP2 and also with OP1 the contention taken by the OP2 that the complaint is premature cannot be accepted.  It is clear from the entire documents and the evidence and the assurance provided by OP1 that the entire loan amount and pending EMI comes under the insurance when the deceased Rangaswamy succumbed to death. Under these circumstance the OP1 is liable to recover the pending EMI from the date of death of Rangaswamy i.e., from 19.04.2021 from the insurance company OP2 and if they have not done the insurance as per their statement and if they are erred in processing of insurance in timely manner then as per sec 83 and 85 of the CPA 2019 the OP1 is liable for the pending EMI.
45. As per the contention of OP1 and 2, they have also serviced the fire and perils insurance which stood in the joint name of complainant No.1 and her deceased husband Rangaswamy, this also clearly shows that the similar way the claim form for life insurance for both of them was taken by the OP1.
46. It is clear from the evidence and documents that the OP1 has committed negligence in servicing the insurance as per their assurance and agreed by themselves during the loan processing. Hence they alone need to burden for any pending EMI from the date of death of the deceased.
47. In support of their contention the complainants have also relied on the decisions of the Hon’ble NCDRC in Rev. Petition No.4105/2014. In this case the Hon’ble NCDRC has raised the issue and decided that the insurance company was choosen by the bank and it was for the bank to keep the policy alive by paying renewal premium as and when it fell due. When the policy is assigned to the bank which has not only sanction the credit limit but also paid the renewal premium in the past. The obligation stand shifted from the insured to the assignee bank.
48. The complainant has also relied on another decision of the Hon’ble NCDRC in SBI life insurance company ltd., vs Smt.Asha Disit and another. It is clearly held that when the insurance premium amount is deducted from the loan and EMI payments have been made regularly which consists of insurance amount then the bank is held liable for the loss of insurance coverage amount for not processing or completing the documentation.  No due loan amount can be recovered from the complainant.  
49. In view of the above discussion it is clear that the complainant has clearly established the deficiency of service and negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of OP1. In view of the deficiency of service of the part of the OP1 the complainant was exposed to these problems after the death of her husband.  If the OP1 has clearly informed about non coverage of insurance of the deceased during his life time when he has sent the email dated 01.02.2021 the deceased would have paid the premium amount or he would have completed the other formalities to get the insurance policy. The OP1 have not at all informed the complainants even though they have sent the email by way of reply to the deceased that the entire loan applicants were covered under the policy. They have not informed the deceased and the complainant NO.1 that the deceased was not covered under the policy of life and health even though they have deducted Rs.5,51,336/- towards the insurance amount and also issued the joint insurance policy of fire and peril. Hence we answer point No.1 in affirmative and point No.2 partly in affirmative.
50. Point No.3:- In view the discussion referred above we proceed to pass the following;

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. OP1 is directed to close the loan account No.173401310761604 and not to demand any amount from the complainant which is due from 19.04.2021 from the date of death of the complainant NO.2.
3. OP1 is further directed to return the original documents to the complainant NO.1 which are mortgaged in the loan agreement No. 173401310761604 for the property in Site No.7, Municipal No.7/7/1, Old Pid 22-28-7, New Pid No.22-28-7/1, 1^st Cross Road, SSI Area, CITB Layout, Rajajinagar, BBMP Ward No.108, Sri Ramamandira, Near SJR High School, Bengaluru 560 010.
4. OP1 is further directed to refund the EMI amount which are recovered from complainant NO.1 from April 2021 i.e., from the date of death of complainant NO.2 with interest at 8% p.a., from the date of filing of this complaint.
5. The OP1 is further directed not to make any adverse remarks in CIBIL records of the complainant No.1 with respect to loan agreement NO. 173401310761604.
6. OP1 is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
7. The OP1 shall comply this order within 60 days from this date, failing which the OP1 is directed to pay interest at 10% p.a., after expiry of 60 days on the remaining loan amount which is due from 19.04.2021 from the date of death of complainant No.2 till realization.
8. Furnish the copy of this order and return the extra pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 21^ST day of AUGUST 2023)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party 2 – R.W.1;

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party 1 – R.W.2;