IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOLLAM
DATED THIS THE 3rd DAY OF JUNE 2022
Present: - Sri. E.M.Muhammed Ibrahim, B.A, LLM. President
Smt.S.Sandhya Rani. Bsc, LLB ,Member
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
CC.No.23/2017
Anu Bindhu, W/o the Late Shaji,
Karunakara Vilasam,
Kolannor Muri,
Ezhukon Village, Kottarakkara: Complainant
(By Adv.V.Vinaya Chandran)
V/S
- State Bank of India,
Regional Office,
Thiruvananthapuram
rep.by Regional Manager
(By Adv.Boris Paul)
- State Bank of India,
Kollam Main Branch,
Bishop Jerom Nagar, Chinnakkada,
Kollam. Rep.by its Manager:Opposite parties
(By Adv.Boris Paul)
ORDER
Sri.Stanly Harold, B.A.LLB, Member
This is a case based on a complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
The averments in the complaint in short are as follows:-
The complainant is a widow. Her husband named Shajimon was employed at the Emirate of Abu Dhabi and he expired on 14.06.2016. The complainant’s husband availed a housing loan from the 2nd opposite party for an amount of Rs.15,05,290/-. At the time of availing the loan amount he took an insurance policy for an amount of Rs.14,57,208/-(Rupees Fourteen Lakh Fifty Seven thousand Two hundred and eight only) from the SBT Life Suraksha. As per the terms of the policy the legal heirs of the policy holder are not liable to pay the balance amount to be paid by deceased after his death. Such amount shall be paid by the insurance authority. The complainant availed the insurance policy from SBT, Kollam main branch situated at Bishop Jerome Nagar, Chinnakkada, Kollam. Later all the State Banks in India amalgamated with State Bank of India. At the time of availing the loan amount the 2nd opposite party funded the premium amount of Rs.65,290/-(Sixty Five thousand two hundred and ninety only) from the loan amount. The 2nd opposite party paid only Rs.14,40,000/-(Fourteen lakh and Forty thousand only) to the Late Shajimon. As per the terms of the contract Mr.Shajimon was bound to repay the said amount in 222 instalments Rs.15,151/-(Fifteen thousand one hundred and fifty one only) being the EMI amount without any default. The said Shajimon was regularly repaying the said amount. In the course of the repayment he got laid up at Gulf where he was working and he failed to pay two instalments of the month of April and May of the year 2016. Subsequently he was bound to pay Rs.43,829.91/-(Rupees Forty three thousand eight hundred and twenty nine and ninety paise) as arrear to the opposite parties. Due to that the 2nd opposite party issued a letter dated 13.06.2016 to the husband of the complainant. Anyway on 14.06.2016 he passed away at the Emirate of Abu Dhabi where he was employed. The complainant is legally bound to pay the above stated amount Rs.43,829.91/- as the legal representative of the Late Shajimon. The SBI Live Policy the insurance company is liable to pay Rs.14,57,208/- to the opposite parties. The complainant is liable to pay the balance amount remaining out of the above stated amount of Rs.14,57,208/- from the balance loan amount to be paid. At the time of death of the husband of the complainant, she is liable to pay Rs.14,82,898/- only as the balance amount out of which the insurance company paid Rs.14,57,208/- as per cheque No.417015 dated 27.10.2016 to the 2nd opposite party. Hence the complainant is liable to pay only Rs.25,690/- to the opposite parties as balance loan amount.
The 2nd opposite party suppressed the above stated benefit available to the complainant from her. Thereafter on 25.08.2016 the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party to pay Rs.43,829.91/- as arrear to the opposite parties. The 2nd opposite party realized Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) from the complainant on the same day and made her to believe that the said amount is to be paid as arrear. Thereafter opposite parties promised her to handover the documents deposited with them including the title deed of the property of Late Shajimon at the time of availing loan amount within one month. Thereafter on 22.09.2016 the complainant again approached 2nd opposite party to receive back the settlement Deed No.557/2005 of Ezhukon S.R.O and other documents. But the 2nd opposite party compelled the complainant to pay Rs.34,000/- more to clear the entire liability with it. Accordingly she paid the said amount on the same date itself. Thereafter the documents was only to be returned after obtaining the sanction from the 1st opposite party. Thereafter the complainant again approached the 1st opposite party on 03.10.2016 to receive back the above stated documents. But the 1st opposite party informed her that she is bound to pay the EMIs up to the day on which the insurance amount is paid by the insurance authority to it. The said demand is illegal and irrational. The complainant was liable to pay the dues as above stated and the outstanding balance amount from the loan amount after deducting the insurance amount from it; that the outstanding balance amount from the loan amount is Rs.25,690/- that the due of the late Shajimon till 14.06.2016 is Rs.43,830/- and that the complainant as the legal representatives of the late Shajimon is liable to pay Rs.69,520/-. But the 1st opposite party realized Rs.64,480/-(Sixty four thousand four hundred and eighty only) more from the complainant. In the circumstances the complainant issued a notice through her counsel demanding to return the said amount for Rs.64,480/- and pledged documents. After receiving the notice 2nd opposite party responded with misleading facts. The complainant tried her best to get back the said amount and documents through negotiation. The 2nd opposite party again issued notice dated 19.11.2016 to pay the amount without disclosing the statement of account. The 2nd opposite party is liable to repay Rs.64,480/-(sixty four thousand four hundred and eighty only) and its interest to the complainant. She has the right to realize the said amount from them. A statement of account regarding the same is furnished.
The opposite parties are providing services to its customers including the complainant by providing loan. It is bound to provide clarity in its transactions. Its transactions with the complainant is clouded with ambiguities and suppression. It is a defective service on the side of the opposite parties. Hence the complainant is constrained to file this complaint.
Opposite parties strongly resisted the averment in the complaint and filed version jointly. They contended that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and is liable to be dismissed in limini. The averments in the complaint are misleading and are against actual facts and they further contended that the complaint is filed on false premises on an experimental basis. The terms of the SBI life insurance policy are misinterpreted by the complainant. As per the terms of SBI Life insurance Company Ltd., in the event of the death of the life assured during the term of the policy, the sum assured applicable for the month and year of death as per the sum assured schedule is payable to the Master Policy Holder irrespective of the actual amount outstanding as per his loan schedule with Master Policy Holder. Another contention of the opposite parties is that the insurance premium amount is to be disbursed in 5 yearly instalments and only 4 instalments were disbursed up to June 2016. This fact is purposefully suppressed by the complainant. As per the loan sanction letter, the loan amount together with interest was payable in 222 EMI at Rs.15,200/-each and wherever EMI commences after a startup period of 18 months, the interest accruing for such interim period shall be paid by the borrower on or before 10th of every month starting from February 2013. Since the loan amount has been utilized towards construction of house the borrower shall pay first such instalment on August 2014, or after the completion or expiry of 18 months from the date of first instalment, whichever is earlier. As the final disbursement was made on April 2013, the repayment should have been started from May 2013, but the repayment was not started by the loanee on the stipulated date. The first remittance of Rs.28,400/- was made on 26.08.2013 which was already delayed payment of 5 months and the second remittance of Rs.25,000/- was made on 29.01.2014 which proves that the account was running irregular from the beginning itself. It is further contended by the opposite parties that if the repayment was correctly made by the loanee, the balance outstanding as on June 2016 would have been Rs.14,30,843/- but in the present case due to delayed payment, the balance outstanding was Rs.15,89,227/-. As the account was irregular and turned to NPA, the Bank issued SARFAESI notice on 08.10.2015 and subsequent paper publication was made during December 2015 for taking possession of the property and a charge of Rs.24,785/- was debited which is also payable by the loanee. The opposite parties further contended that during June 2016, a notice was again issued to repay the minimum dues to avoid reinforcing the SARFAESI proceedings issued earlier, but remittance was not made and the account again turned to NPA during June 2016. Since the account was NPA, the bank was not able to claim the death benefit and asked the legal heirs to regularize the account by remitting the dues of Rs.1,60,000/- but an amount of Rs.1,34,000/- alone was remitted by the complainant.
The complainant approached the bank to remit the dues and submit the papers for claiming the insurance amount and not to receive the Settlement Deed as alleged in the complaint. The bank will give back the Settlement Deed after closing the loan account by remitting the balance outstanding plus interest accrued. As per the terms of the SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd., the amount payable as on June 2016 is Rs.14,57,208/- which includes insurance account also and it is clearly mentioned in the annexure of the policy schedule. The legal heirs of the loanee are to bear the difference amount outstanding in the loan account and insurance account. The opposite parties further contended that the bank was unable to close the loan account for the reasons narrated supra and the matter was also informed to the complainant. It was perhaps due to some misunderstanding of the complainant that the issue was taken up before the Hon’ble commission. The opposite party bank does not charge any amount illegally and against the terms of the agreement. No excess money is charged by the bank from the complainant. The allegations of loss sustained to the complainant are false. The opposite parties are not caused any loss to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the bank or its officers. The officers of the bank are to abide by the Rules and they informed the complainant about the manner in which the loan has to be closed. The complainant is not entitled to any compensation from the bank. The opposite party bank is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant on any account. The complainant has no cause of action against the opposite party to file this complaint. The complaint lacks bonafides and is filed with ill motives. The reliefs sought for are not at all allowable. So the opposite parties prayed that pleased to dismiss the complaint with cost of the opposite party.
In view of the above pleadings the points that arise for consideration are:-
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties charging the extra amount for Rs.64,480/- from the insurance amount paid by the insurance company?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get back the Settlement Deed No.577/2005 pledged before the opposite parties?
- Reliefs and costs?
Evidence on the side of the complainant consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts.P1 to P11 documents.
The opposite party have not adduced any documentary evidence before the commission. Complainant and opposite parties filed notes of argument.
Heard counsel for the complainant.
Point No.1 and 2
For avoiding repetition of discussion of materials these two points are considered together. The complainant’s case is that her husband late Shajimon availed a loan amount for Rs.15,05,290/- from the opposite parties. At the time of availing the loan he also obtained insurance policy from the SBI Insurance Company Ltd. According to the terms of the insurance it is subsequently stated that the legal heirs of the policy holder is not liable to pay the future loan amount in a repayment instalments from the date of his death to the opposite parties. The complainant had a specific case that she was only liable to pay Rs.43,829.91/- as outstanding arrears till the date of the death late Shajimon it is argued from the part of the complainant that the opposite party has realized Rs.1,34,000/- from her instead of the amount Rs.43,829.91/-. Moreover the opposite parties demanded to pay Rs.1,60,000/- as the total arrear and demanded Rs.26,000/- extra from her. They promised to return back the documents produced by her husband at the time of availing the loan applications. According to the complainant the above demand of the opposite parties to pay more amount than the actual amount from the complainant and the consignment statement of accounts clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from the side of opposite parties. As the complainant and late husband are customers of the opposite party looted money from her and also made attempt to loot further amount illegally from her as a condition to return the documents due to her. The opposite parties informed the complainant that the documents furnish at the time of availing the loan shall be return only after obtaining sanction from the 1st opposite party.
However the opposite parties raised a strong contention that the terms of the SBI life Insurance Policy are misinterpreted by the complainant. As per the terms of SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd., in the event of the death of the life assured during the terms of the policy, the sum assured applicable for the month and year of death as per the sum assured schedule is payable to the Master Policy Holder irrespective of the actual amount outstanding as per his loan schedule with Master Policy Holder.
The Insurance premium amount to be disbursed in 5 yearly instalments and only 4 instalments were disbursed up to June 2016. According to the opposite parties this fact was intentionally suppressed by the complainant. As per the Ext.P1 loan sanction letter the loan amount together with interest was payable in 222 EMI at Rs.15,200/- each and wherever EMI commences after a start up period of 18 months, the interest accruing for such interim period shall be paid by the borrower on or before 10th of every month starting from February 2013. The complainant has utilized the loan amount for the construction of house and the borrower shall pay first instalment on August 2014 or after the completion or expiry of 18 months. The repayment was not started by the loanee on the stipulated time and date. It is pertinent to note that the first remittance of Rs.28,400/- was made on 26.08.2013 which was already delayed payment of 5 months and the second remittance of Rs.25,000/- was made on 29.01.2014 which indicate account was running irregular from the beginning itself. If the repayment was correctly made by the loanee, the balance outstanding was Rs.15,89,227/-. It is pertinent to note that due to delayed payment account was irregular and it was turned to NPA. In the circumstances bank has issued SARFAESI notice on 08.10.2015 and subsequent Paper Publication was made during December 2015 for taking possession of the property and a charge of Rs.24,785/- was debited which is also payable by the loanee.
During the month of June 2016 yet another notice was served to repay the minimum dues to avoid the execution of SARFAESI proceedings issued earlier but it was not made and again account turned to NPA during June 2016. Since the account was NPA the bank was not able to claim the death benefit and requested the legal heirs to regularize the account by remitting the outstanding balance of Rs.1,60,000/-. The complainant had paid only an amount of 1,34,000/- . It is argued on behalf of the opposite party that the complainant approached the bank only to remit dues and to produce papers for claiming the insurance amount and not to receive the settlement deed as alleged in the complainant. It is a general principle that bank returns the security document only after closing the loan account. It is pertinent to note as per the terms of SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd that the amount payable as on June 2016 is Rs.14,57,208/- which includes insurance account also and it is clearly mentioned in the annexure of the policy schedule. The legal heirs of the loanee are to bear the amount outstanding in the loan account and insurance account. The complainant when she was in the witness box as PW1 would clearly admit that loan was not properly repaid and it was having arrears and also the EMIs were not properly paid in exact time that she received Ext.P2 notice issued by the bank for demanding to remit the arrears of the loan. The complainant who relied on the insurance policy and loan agreement is the bound to produce the loan agreement as well as insurance policy certificate and the statement of account etc. to prove her case. She does not have a case that she is not in possession those documents. Even if she is not in possession she ought to have taken steps to get the documents produced before the commission. Her failure to produce those relevant documents can be seen only as suppression of material facts. PW1 specifically admitted during cross examination that the loanee is a chronic defaulter and that the EMI is not paid in time that she is not aware of the details of the loan and also failed to adduce any reliable materials to prove her case. According to PW1 Cu tIkn-\m-kv]-Z-amb loan sâ hnh-c-§Ä t\cn-«-dn-bmtam? (Q) Ipd¨v Adnbmw (A) BZy EMI tabv 13 \mWv AS-bvt¡--Xv. icn-bm-Wv (A) 2013 BKkvXv 26 emWv BZ-ys¯ EMI AS-¨-Xv? (Q) HmÀ½-bn-Ã(A) At¸mÄ Xs¶ 5 amks¯ IpSn-ÈnI kw`-hn¨p F¶v ]d-bp-¶p(Q) IpSn-ÈnI Dm-bn-cp-¶p (A)”. The above evidence of PW1 would admit that the loan was in arrears from the initial stage itself. She deposed that the bank manager adviced her husband that the EMI shall be paid only after the completion of his house. But she miserably failed to state the date of completion of house. When a specific question was paid to PW1 she answers (page No.2 of the deposition) “ sI«nS \nÀ½mWw ]qÀ¯n-bm-bXv Adn-bn-Ã. 26.08-.2013 þ BZy XhW AS-¨-Xn-\p-tijw cm-aXv ]Ww AS¨Xv. 29.01.2014-þ am{X-am-WtÃm (Q) HmÀ½-bn-à (A) amkm-amkw AS-¨nà F¶p-ff HmÀ½ D-tÃm. tÌävsaâv I½o-j-\n lmP-cm-¡mtam(Q) lmP-cm-¡n-bn-«p-v (A) . Hmtcm amkhpw EMI AS-¨-Xnsâ _m¦v tÌävsaâv lmP-cm-¡n-bn-«n-söv ]d-bp-¶p (Q). lmP-cm-¡n-bn-«pv (A) .
According to PW1 she had paid 1,00,000/- without any complaint against the opposite party bank and admits she has also paid Rs.34,000/- without raising any complaint against the opposite arty bank. The facts clearly indicates that the complainant is very much aware of the balance amount due to the opposite party bank. But now she is turning around and simply alleging that the bank realized excess amount from her without adducing any reliable evidence to prove such allegations of the complainant in this case. The complainant failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the balance amount claimed by the bank is in excess of the amount actually due. The case put forth by the complainant clearly indicated fact the bank is expected to return the security documents only after closing the loan by making full payment of the dues towards the bank.
On evaluating the entire materials available on record we are of the view that the complainant has miserably failed to prove her allegations of deficiency in service against the opposite parties .
We find no merit in the complaint and same is only to be dismissed. The point answered accordingly.
Point No.4
In the result complaint stands dismissed.
No costs.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant Smt. Minimol S. transcribed and typed by her corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission this the 3rd day of June 2022.
STANLY HAROLD:Sd/-
E.M.MUHAMMED IBRAHIM:Sd/-
S. SANDHYA RANI:Sd/-
Forwarded/by Order
Senior superintendent
INDEX
Witnesses Examined for the Complainant:-
PW1 : Anu Bindhu
Documents marked for the complainant
Ext.P1 :Copy of the loan documents dated 23.01.2013
Ext.P2:Copy of the demand notice dated 13.06.2016
Ext.P3:Advocate Notice dated 19.10.2016
Ext.P4: Acknowledgment card dated 20.10.2016
Ext.P5: Copy of the reply issued by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant
dated 29.10.2016
Ext.P6: Copy of intimation issued from SBI Insurance Company dated 01.11.2016
Ext.P7: Copy of the 2nd demand notice dated 19.11.2016
Ext.P8: EMI statement on 08.2014 to 11.2032
Ext.P9: pay slip dated 25.08.2016
Ext.P10: pay slip
Ext.P11: copy of death certificate dated 03.07.2016
Witnesses Examined for the opposite party:-Nil
Documents marked for opposite party:-Nil
