KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL NO. 498/11
JUDGMENT DATED : 30.3.12
PRESENT:
JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
Indian Overseas Bank Ltd.,
Kanjikode Branch, Rep. by Senior Manager, : APPELLANT
Mrs. N.A. Geetha.
(By Adv. H. Josh)
Vs
Rathinam, W/o late Gurswamy,
Bandhiboyan Thottam, Walayar,
Palakkad. : RESPONDENT
(By Adv. Rajesh Vijayendran)
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Palakkad in order dated: 30th May 2011. The date of the filing of the complainant is 1.2.2010. The appellant is the opposite party and the respondent is the complainant in the above OP.
2. In brief, the complainant’s husband had taken an agricultural loan of two lakhs from the opposite party bank during the
year 2005. The complainant’s husband taken insurance for the loan. One time premium was taken by the opposite party from the loan amount of Shri. Guruswamy, the husband of the complainant. He died on 31.3.08. The complainant was not having the knowledge about the insurance till some months back. The opposite party concealed the fact of insurance and the complainant was asked to pay the balance loan amount. The complainant was forced to pay rs.94,812/- towards the balance loan amount when the complainant knew the fact of insurance immediately, she approached the bank and requested to disburse the insurance amount. According to the Manager the insurance premium could not be paid to the insurance agency and the complainant could not receive the benefit of insurance. The complainant sent advocate notice to the opposite party and it was replied by the opposite party in false stories. The opposite party having a bounden duty to insure the loan as they had taken the insurance premium from his account and handling charges was also taken from the account of Shri. Guruswamy. Hence the complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and to refund of Rs.91,812/- as the excess amount collected from the complainant and cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
3. The opposite party contended in their version that they deducted a sum of Rs.11,726/- was the loan amount at the time of the disbursement of the loan. The opposite party denied this allegations they admitted that they disbursed agricultural loan Rs.2,00,000/- further allegation that the opposite party has inform the complainant that the bank was not able to pay the Insurance Premium to the agent, so the complainant is not entitled to get any benefit is also not correct and denied. But the opposite party admitted on fact that after availing the agricultural loan; late Shri. Guruswamy by mistakenly remitted a sum of Rs.11,726/- towards insurance premium for liability insurance. The insurance is applicable only to the borrowers under Retail Loans and does not cover agricultural loans. The opposite party stated that the insurance premium collected was returned by the Life Insurance Company and the amount was credited in the loan account. Late Shri. Guruswamy has remitted the premium by mistakenly and there is no policy offered by the Life Insurance Corporation of India covering the agricultural loan liability in case of the death of the borrower. Hence the opposite party prayed that dismiss to the complaint with cost.
4. The Forum below considered the evidence adduced by the complainant Ext. A1 toA6 and the documentary evidence of the opposite parties;Ext. B1 to B3. The Forum below carefully perused the evidence and discussed and answered all the points raised for consideration in the dispute and taken a view that the opposite party must given proper guidelines to the applicant. In the present case the opposite party has not given proper guidelines and the husband of the complainant could not get insurance. The complainant has not produced any evidence to prove the liability of the insurance cover for the agricultural loans. The Forum below found deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and directed the opposite party to pay Rs.25,000 as compensation for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- as cost of the proceedings to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of order, failing which the complainant is entitled for 9% interest per annum for the whole amount from the date of order till realization.
5. On this day this appeal came before this commission for final hearing both counsels for the appellant/respondent/complainant appeared and argued the case in detail. The counsel for the appellant argued that the complainant was ordinarily approaching to the bank authorities almost every day. The complainant remitted the amount for insurance premium is not a responsibility from the part of the opposite parties as per the Ext. B4; copy of circular issued by the Central Office of the opposite party. The agricultural loan is not coming under the purview of the insurance coverage in the insurance coverage only applicable in the case of retailed loans. The appellant/opposite party given this amount collected from the complainant to the insurance company and the insurance company latter return this money. In the circumstance, the contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the entire problems created by the complainant himself and from the part of the bank there is no deficiency in service contributed. But other side, the counsel for the respondent/complainant argued that the complainant is only an agriculturist and the illiterate man he does not no any details like procedure and formalities. On availing the loan, from the evidence it is seeing that the bank insisted the policy for protection of their own loan amount. A mere return the premium amount is not solving the entire problem suffered by the complainant. How the bank is collected the premium from the loan amount and the complainant latter taken a contention that the agricultural loan is not having any such insurance coverage. These are previous arguments apart from this Ext. B4 circular which issued by the Central office of the opposite party bank. The Superior officers are issuing so many circulars to their subordinate officers. This is not having any legal sanctity unless
issued the circulars by the RBI or Ministry of finance. No value for any such of this type of circulars. We totally discard this evidence and arguments submitted by the appellant bank. These are illegal and irregular. We are seeing that the appellant/opposite party committed not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice. We are not seeing any reason to interfere in the order passed by the Forum below. It is legally sustainable. We uphold this order.
In the result, this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below.
The points of the appeal discussed and answered one by one accordingly, no cost ordered.
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
Da
