Date of filing: | 24.03.2017 |
Date of disposal: | 30.08.2023 |
BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
DATED: 30.08.2023
PRESENT
HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH: PRESIDENT
Mr.K.B SANGANNANAVAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mrs. DIVYASHREE M : LADY MEMBER
APPEAL NO. 589/2021
Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, A Banking Company under the Companies Act comes under Banking Regulation Act 1949 and having its registered office at No.22, 2nd Floor, M.G.Road, Bangalore-560001. Rep. by its Authorised Signatory Sr. Manager Sri. Sashikanth P.V. (Advocate – Shridhara Murthy) | …..Appellant/s. |
V/s |
1) Smt. Paramma @ Paravva, W/o. Hanumappa Kuri, Aged About 42 years, R/at: Lachanakeri, Kopal District. (Advocate – Mohan Malge) 2) Pakirappa R, S/o.Ramappa Kuri, Aged About 30 years, R/at: H.No.173, Lachanakeri, Koppal District. (Advocate – Mohan Malge) | …..Respondent/s. |
ORDER
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT
01. The opposite party has filed this Appeal under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 challenging the impugned order dated: 06.07.2021 passed in C.C. No.29/2020 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Koppal.
02. The parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the commission below.
03. Heard the arguments.
04. The District Commission after going through the matter had partly allowed the consumer complaint on 06.07.2021 in C.C. No.29/2020 by directing the opposite party to adjust the group insurance policy amount to the outstanding loan amount of the deceased insured, bearing loan account No.TFE-5357734 and to pay Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs of the proceedings and the OP aggrieved by this order, has filed this Appeal.
05. Perused the impugned order dated: 06.07.2021, grounds urged in the Appeal, the Appeal papers submitted by the Appellant and Respondents.
06. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that, the complainant’s husband during his lifetime had purchased a second hand tractor bearing registration No. KA-37/TB-6732 by availing loan of Rs.4,70,011/- as borrower from the opposite party – Bank and the 2nd Respondent Mr. Pakirappa was the Co-borrower for the said loan. The said loan was to be repayable in 08 half yearly installments of Rs.82,252/- starting from 10.01.2018 to 10.07.2021. Further allegation of the complainant is that, the opposite party – Bank by deducting premium amount of Rs.2,802/- from the complainant’s husband loan account had issued Kotak Complete Cover Group insurance Plan in the name of Co-borrower Pakirappa which was valid from 21.07.2017 to 21.07.2021 towards covering the risk of loan. The husband of the complainant was died on 31.12.2019 due to heart attack and at that time the coverage of the policy was Rs.1,99,787/-. Due to the issuance of insurance policy in the name of another person the complainant was deprived from getting the benefit of the said policy. In fact as per the Kotak complete group plan the alleged policy shall be issued in the name of borrower only, but opposite party-Bank had issued the same in the name of co-borrower which amounts to deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. After receipt of notice from the District Commission counsel for opposite party – Bank appeared and contested the proceedings by filing written version, affidavit evidence along with documents. After hearing both side arguments the District Commission had passed the impugned order.
07. The grounds urged by the Appellant is that, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is wholly erroneous as complainant is not a necessary party to the proceedings and when the complainant was not the insurer and co-borrower or Pakirappa R is the insurer, how the insurance policy of the other person can be adjusted towards the loan account of late Hanumappa. The District Forum totally erred in not giving proper findings about the deficiency of service against the opposite party - Bank and in what way the deficiency in service attracts. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party - Bank. The complainant has not revealed the actual facts to the Forum and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
08. Learned Counsel for Complainant/Respondent had vehemently argued that, the District Commission after careful scrutiny of the records and after providing sufficient opportunity to both sides had rightly passed impugned order on merits. The opposite party – Bank after deducting the premium from the complainant’s husband’s loan account had wrongly issued the alleged insurance policy in the name of one Pakirappa and due to the said deficiency the complainant had to deprive of getting the benefit of the said insurance policy which is the grave error committed by the insurer and on error committed by insurer the complainant should not suffer.
09. In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered view that, the opposite party – Bank being trustworthy, had to safeguard the interest of the borrower/customer by issuing the alleged insurance policy which covers risk of loan in the name of the complainant’s husband/borrower. Instead of doing so, it had issued the said insurance policy in the name of one Pakirappa who was the co-borrower of the said insurance policy, which leads to suffer lot of mental agony by the complainant that to subsequent to the death of her husband. Hence we are of the opinion that, there is no error found from the impugned order passed by the District Commission in C.C. No.29/2020, as such does not call for any interference of this Commission. Hence, proceed to confirm the impugned order and as a result dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.
10. The statutory amount kept in deposit shall be transferred to the District Commission for needful.
11. Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as to the parties to the appeal.
LADY MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT
KNMP*
