Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/13/2021

Smt. Sushil - Complainant(s)

Versus

PNB Housing Finance Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Kapil Gupta

26 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/13/2021
Date of Institution	:	5.1.2021
Date of Decision	:	26/2/2024

 

1. Smt. Sushil wife of late Sh. Ram Kumar, presently resident of H. No. 170, Sector 18, Raj Enclave, Dera Bassi, district Mohali (Punjab).

 

2. Kavita wife of late Sh. Mithun Kumar R/o House No. 520/35, Shiva Enclave, Pabhat, Zirakpur district Mohali (Punjab).

...Complainants

VERSUS

 

1.   PNB Housing Finance Ltd. through its Branch Manager SCO No. 323-324, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. through its Manager, Registered office ICICI Lombard House, 414, Veer Savarkar Marg, Near Siddhi Vinayak Temple, Prabhadevi, Mumbai - 400025

Local address: Plot No. 149, Fourth floor Industrial Area Phase-I, Chandigarh.

3. Bank of India through its Branch Manager SCF No. 9, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh.

...Opposite Parties

CORAM :	PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	SURJEET KAUR SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER MEMBER

                       

ARGUED BY		Sh. Kapil Gupta, Advocate for complainants.
		Sh. Sumit Puri, Advocate for OP No.1
		Sh. Kaveesh Kailey, Advocate for OP No.2
		Sh. Vivek Dawar, Advocate for OP No.3.

Per SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, Member

     Briefly stated the son of complainant NO.1 while availing home loan from OP No.1 was also issued an  insurance policy by OP No.1 from OP No.2  being a mandatory condition  of disbursement of loan amount to the complainant No.1 and charged Rs.44,000/- as premium amount. It was assured to the son (now deceased)of the complainant No.1 that  in case of any mishap has happen  the legal heir will not have to pay  the balance loan amount to OP No.1 and only the insurance company i.e. OP no.2 shall  pay the balance amount  to OP No.1 and as such the loan was protected by the said insurance policy. The OPs have not issued any policy document and terms and conditions to the son of the complainant No.1.  The monthly installment of the loan was being deducted from the account of the complainant. Unfortunately, the son of complainant No.1 has expired on 25.8.2019 when he was found unconscious  condition on the road near railway phatak, Dera Bassi  and was brought dead in hospital of Sector 32, Chandigarh.  In the Month of December 2019, the complainants intimated the death of the complainant to the OPs and the OP No.1 suggested the complainants to lodge the claim with OP No.2 and also furnished policy number to the complainants. On 13.3.2020 the OP No.2 repudiated the claim of the complainants   on the ground that the complainants have failed to produce any major medical illness  record of the insured and procedure as defined and covered under the policy and the claim falls outside the purview of the policy, which is totally illegal. It is averred that at the time of issuance of the policy the complainant was hale and hearty and the OP insurance company has not conducted any medical examination of the son of the complainant No.1. Thereafter the complainants requested several times to the OPs to redress their grievance but to no avail. Alleging the aforesaid act of Opposite Parties deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part, this complaint has been filed.

2. The Opposite Parties NO.1 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that the complainants and the son of complainant NO.1 have jointly availed the loan. The insurance was availed by the complainants at their own accord from the OP No 2 and the OP No 1 only funded the premium amount of Rs 44,000/- at the request and with the consent of the complainants, and son of complainant No.1 (since deceased) which was added in the loan amount disbursed to the complainants and son of complainant No.1 (now deceased) and the total repayable amount now came to Rs 14,89,000/-. The Insurance was availed by Loan Applicants from OP No 2 against two separate heads i.e. 1) personal insurance under product name Group Secure Mind with a Premium of Rs.32022/- and 2) Insurance of Structure (mortgaged property) with a premium of Rs. 11978/- making total Insurance premium to Rs.44,000/- It is pertinent to mention here that there is no privity of contract between OP No 1 and the complainants in relation to the insurance policies availed by the complainant.  All other allegations made in the complaint has been  denied being wrong.
3. OP No.2 in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case stated that stated that the answering OP has rightly repudiated the claim of the complainants as there is no  mention of cause of death, and no postmortem  of the insured was conducted.   As per terms and conditions of the policy until or unless the cause is not known it will not be possible to determine the fact whether such incident falls under he purview of the policy as there could be a case that the insured had undergone or suffered such treatment or accident which the policy in question does not approve for the compensation.  Thus the claim of the complainants were repudiated as per terms and conditions of the policy. Denying any deficiency on its part a prayer for the dismissal of the complaint has been made.
4. OP No.3 in its statement stated that complainant No.1 is having pension account with the answering OP  and  the dispute in question does not pertain to the answering OP. Thus, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 
5. No rejoinder filed.
6. Contesting parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the contesting parties and gone through the record of the case.
8. On perusal of written arguments of OP No.1, it is observed that during the pendency of complaint, the complete outstanding  loan amount was paid by the complainants in the months of July 2022, and subsequently the loan account was closed by the OP No.1. OP No.1 also issued NOC  on 20.7.2022 and certified the final payment of the loan and subsequently closure of the loan account (Annexure A-1).
9. On perusal of written arguments of OP No.2, it is observed that during pendency of complaint, it settled the claim of the complainant for Rs.13,09,735/-  on 19.1.2022.  On perusal of Risk Assumption letter  dated 30.4.2019 annexed alongwith written arguments  of OP No.2 it is clear that the sum insured is mentioned as Rs.13,09,735/- and the same  has been paid on 19.1.2022 in the loan account held by the complainants with OP No.1.
10. As the son of the complainant No.1 died on 25.8.2019, we are of the view that the insured amount was payable by OP No.2 to the complainants in their loan account on 25.8.2019, instead of 19.1.2022. Due to the said act of OP No.2 the complainants continued to pay the floating rate of interest on loan amount whereas they were paid the insured amount with delay that too without any interest. Thus certainly the OP No.2 is indulged in unfair trade practice as it firstly did not pay the insured amount to the complainant in time and thereafter paid the same with delay of more than two years without any interest. Thus OP No.2 is liable to pay interest on the insured amount.
11. In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint partly succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP No.2 is directed as under:-

1. to pay interest @9% P.A. to the complainants on the insured amount of Rs.13,09,735/- w.e.f. 25.8.2019 to 19.1.2022 till onwards.
2. to pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainants as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to them;
3. to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainants as costs of litigation.

12.      This order be complied with by the OP No.2 within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall make the payment of the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.
13. Complaint qua OP No.1&3 stands dismissed.
14. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
15.      Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

 

			sd/-  [Pawanjit Singh]
			President
			Sd/-
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member Sd/-
26/2/2024			[Suresh Kumar Sardana]
mp			Member