STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
Appeal No. | : | 100 of 2017 |
Date of Institution | : | 20.04.2017 |
Date of Decision | : | 24.04.2017 |
1. Rupali daughter of Sh. Siri Ram, resident of 892/H Gali NO.2 Guru Nanak Dev Colony, Sector 10, Badala Road, Kharar, Mohali.
2. Sh. Siri Ram son of late Bhagat Ram resident of H. No. 892/H Gali NO.2, Guru Nanak Dev Colony, Sector 10, Badala Road Kharar, Mohali.
……Appellants
V e r s u s
1. PNB Housing Finance Ltd. through its Relationship Manager SCO 323-324, Ist floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.
2. Sh. Dinesh Singla, Relationship Officer, PNB. Housing Finance Ltd. through its relationship Manager, SCO 323-324, Ist floor, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.
3. Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd. through Sandeep Ghosh, authorized signatory for Bharti AXA Regd. Office unit No.601-602, 6th floor, Raheja Titanium office western express highway, Goregaon (E) Mumbai 400063.
4. Bharti AXA Life Insurance Company Ltd. SCO No.208-209, Sector 34-A, 2nd floor, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.
.. Respondents
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against order dated 03.03.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint No. 220/2016.
BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER
Argued by: Mr. D.P.Singh, Advocate for the appellants.
PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT
Appellants/ Complainants who are daughter and father respectively have filed this appeal against order dated 03.03.2017, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the Forum only), vide which their complaint bearing No.220/2016 was dismissed.
2. As per facts on record, the appellants on 7.11.2014 got sanctioned housing loan to the tune of Rs.27,92,500/-, through respondents No.1 & 2/ Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. It was further said that in the said amount, without any authority, OP Nos.1 & 2 included an amount of Rs.89,475/-towards payment of premium to get an insurance policy. An assurance was given that payment of above amount was optional and it would be dispensed with. It was further said that floating rate of interest was wrongly claimed by OPs No.1 & 2. It was further said that at no point of time, any application was signed to get insurance policy, as stated by the OPs.
3. Upon notice, reply was filed. OPs No.1 & 2 took a specific stand that on proposal having been signed on 28.10.2014 by the appellants, and on signing other loan documents, loan was disbursed and insurance policy was issued on instructions given by the appellants. If the appellants were not satisfied with the issuance of insurance policy, they could have got it cancelled within free look period, however it was not done.
Similar plea qua issuance of insurance policy was taken by OPs No.3 & 4.
4. Both the parties led evidence.
The Forum, on analysis of pleadings, documents on record, and arguments address, dismissed the complaint.
5. When declining the relief, the Forum observed as under ;
“On perusal of the document placed at Annexure C-1, we find that the complainant was sanctioned the loan 28,89,475/- which includes Rs.89,475/- towards insurance premium. The complainants have accepted and signed the said sanction letter. On perusal of Exhibit R/1, we find that the complainant NO.1 has herself signed the questionnaire (questionnaire-cum-enrollment form) of Bharti AXA and had submitted the same to the representative of PNB housing finance Ltd. The said insurance was obtained for coverage (for loan secure) of loan amount of Rs.28 lacs. Now the stand taken by the complainants that they had not approached the Bharti AXA through PNB housing finance Ltd. does not hold good. Also on perusal of Annexure C-3/a at page 28 of the paperbook it is apparent that the premium paid towards the said insurance is Rs.89,474.52 ps. The same was conveyed to the complainant NO.1 on 29.12.2014. In case the complainants were not satisfied with the policy in question they could have availed the option of free look period. But they did not get cancelled the policy in question within the free look period, implying the policy and its terms and conditions were duly accepted by the policy holder and were in order. Thus, we do not find any merit in this complaint and the same deserves to be dismissed.”
6. After hearing counsel for the appellants, we feel that the order passed by the Forum is quite justified. It is proved on record that to the appellants loan of Rs.28,89,474/- was sanctioned. As per policy of the OPs, to secure the loan amount, an insurance policy was got issued in the name of the appellants, on payment of amount of Rs.89,474.52p. The said amount was also paid by OPs No.1 & 2. It was noted as a matter of fact that the appellant No.1/complainant No.1 has signed the questionnaire-cum- enrollment form to get the insurance policy issued through OPs No.3 & 4. The said form was given to the officer of OPs No.1 & 2 for further transmitting it to OPs No.3 & 4. It was also stated that payment of premium amount of Rs.89,474.52 was conveyed to the complainants on 29.12.2014. If the complainants were not happy with the issuance of Insurance Policy they could have got the same cancelled within the free look period. We are of the opinion that in view of the facts mentioned above, no case is made to interfere in the order, under challenge.
7. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
8. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
9. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
24.04.2017
