KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES             REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

          APPEAL 214/2010

JUDGMENT DATED 25.01.2012

PRESENT:-

 JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU     :       PRESIDENT

SHRI. S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR         ;      MEMBER

  APPELLANT

            State Bank of India ,

Chenganoor Branch, Chenganoor,

Alappuzha District.                    

                (Rep. by Adv.  Sri. S. Williams & Judit Sebastain)

                                                 Vs

RESPONDENTS

     1.    P. Sivadasan,

            Sivalayam House,

            Cheriyanad P.O., Alappuzha District.

2.      SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.,

            2^nd Floor, Turner Morrison Building,

            G.N. Vaidhya Marg Fort,Mumbai – 400023.

                                            (R1 Rep. by Adv. Raghul D. Panicker)

       ( R2   Rep. by Adv. Sri. V.S. Pradeep, B.S. Deepthi Bhagavathi)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU      :       PRESIDENT

The appellants are the first opposite party/State Bank of India  in C.C 60/2008 in the file of CDRF, Alappuzha.  The complaint has been allowed directing that the complainant is not bound to repay the Education Loan amount and that the bank is not entitled to proceed against the complainant for recovering the above loan amount.  It is also directed that the first opposite party/Bank is to pay compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and cost of Rs. 2,000/- 

 The case of the complainant is that his son had availed Education loan of Rs. 3,00,000/- with the complainant as surety for the BSC Nursing Course , Bangalore during the academic year, 2004-08 as directed by the first opposite party/Bank.  The loan amount was insured and the premium was deducted from the loan amount.  The annual premium was Rs. 653/- The bank was also authorized to remit the premium for subsequent years for renewal by debiting the premium to his son’s loan account.  His son met with an accident and died on 31.5.2007.  The first opposite party had informed his son that the original policy certificate is missing and that a copy of the same will be forwarded which was not done.  After the death of his son when he contacted the first opposite party/Bank, seeking to take steps for indemnifying the loan amount,   It was found that the Insurance has not been renewed.  The second opposite party/Insurance Company vide letter dated 26.10.07 informed the complainant that the insurance has not been renewed from 28.8.2005.  The lapse was occasioned on account of the negligence of the first opposite party/Bank. 

The first opposite party/Bank has filed version disputing that the bank was authorized to renew the insurance policy. 

          The second opposite party/Insurance Company has also filed version stating that since 28.8.2005 no premium has paid for renewal of the policy. 

The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of Pw1, Rw1,  Exts. A1 to A7, B1 and B2.

Pw1, the complainant and Rw1 the branch manager of the first opposite party have testified in support of the respective contentions.  As per Ext. A4 the photo copy of the original proforma for insurance, mode of payment to be made for renewal premium is mentioned as authorizing the bank to pay by debiting to the account of the son of the complainant.  It is also mentioned therein that SBI , Chenganoor               branch/ first opposite party is authorized to debit in the loan account the periodical premium due under the particular insurance proposal.  It is also signed by the bank manager on 17.8.2002 in Ext. A5, letter issued by the Insurer.   It is mentioned in Ext. A5 dated 30.10.2005 signed by the insurer, that the same is with reference to the notice of Assignment and Endorsement received from the assured that having registered the Assignment in favour of the bank  as per the records of the insurer and that on 8.9.04 the original policy document is returned to the bank.  The above letter is addressed to the bank with copy to the son of the complainant.  Further as per Ext. A7 letter dated 8.1.2008 the bank has requested the insurer to intimate the total amounts to be remitted for revival of the policy since the complainant had authorized them to debit the premium into the account of Arun Sivadas, the son of the complainant.  We find that the above  evidence of the complainant positively establish that the first opposite party/Bank has failed to renew the policy on account of lapse on their part.  In the circumstances we find that the order of the Forum does not call for any interference.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

The office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with copy of this order.

                          JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU  ;  PRESIDENT

                         S. CHANDRA MOHAN NAIR    ;  MEMBER

ST