Delhi

West Delhi

CC/10/562

MADAN KUMAR & SIMMI SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI - Opp.Party(s)

26 Nov 2016

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058        

 

                                                                                                             Date of institution:31.7.10

Complaint case No.562/10                                                              Date of Order:26. 11.16

In the matter of

 

 Madan Kumar, S/o Sh. Tarachand,                                                                 

R/o WZ-1392/B, Nangal Raya,

New Delhi-46.                                                                                                         COMPLAINANT-1

 

 Simmi Sharma, W/o Sh. Madan Kumar,

R/o WZ-1392/B, Nangal Raya,

New Delhi-46.                                                                                                         COMPLAINANT-2

 

VERSUS

 

The Manager/Principal Officer,

State Bank of India,

Raghubir Nagar Branch,

New Delhi-27.                                                                                                         OPPOSITE PARTY-1

 

State Bank of India,

through its Manager/Principal Officer

RACPC, C Block, 8^th Floor, Parliament Street,

New Delhi-110001.                                                                                               OPPOSITE PARTY-2

 

SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd.,

through its Manager/Principal Officer

112, 2^nd Dayanand Road,

Daryaganj,New Delhi-110002.                                                                       OPPOSITE PARTY-3

 

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI, PRESIDENT

 

            Briefly case of the complainants  is that they applied for home loan to Opposite Party-1 in respect of Property No.BHSO980068 A382 sector XU-III Greater Noida, U.P.  The cost of the property was Rs.3850112/-.  The complainants received letter of acceptance of loan

2/-

amount of Rs.15,00,000/- from Opposite Party-2.  On 31.7.08 complainants visited Opposite Party-3 and executed documents for insurance policy/cover.  Thereafter loan of Rs.15,00,000/- was sanctioned, with margin money ratio of 61.26% by the borrower amounting to Rs.23,72,360/- and loan ratio of 38.74%of Rs.15,00,000/- by the Opposite Parties with moratorium period of 3 years from sanction of the loan.  The complainant availed loan of Rs.4,70,000/- only.  The complainants paid EMI of the loan regularly with premium of insurance from his saving bank account No.10469924764  SBI, Delhi Cant Nangal Raya Branch, Nw Delhi. 

The complainants  received two certificates of insurance “SBI Life Super Sureksha”  in the name of Madan Kumar, complainant No.1 and Simmi Sharma, complainant No.2 and   both showing the insurance policy as single premium amount of Rs.52280  plus Rs.6586/- service tax totaling Rs. 59860 each, both amounting to Rs.119732/-.  When the complainants came to know that the insurance policy is a single premium they decided to discontinue the insurance policy and sent request to the Opposite Parties for discontinuation of the insurance cover.  But to no action. The complainants continued to pay the premium of insurance cover, already put for termination.  

The complainants  received some money for Sixth Pay Commission arrears and by withdrawal of GPF of complainant No.1 and complainants repaid the entire loan amount of Rs.4,70,000/-. 

            On 18.12.09 the complainants went to Opposite Parties 1 & 2 for closing the loan account.  Where they came to know that amount of Rs.1,28,000/- was still outstanding against them.   On inquiry the Opposite Parties1 & 2  told that the amount of Rs.1,28,000/- outstanding against the complainants is disbursed to SBI Life Insurance, Opposite Party-3 as single premium of the insurance cover.  The complainats never authroised the Opposite Parties 1& 2 to disburse sum of Rs.1,28,000/- to Opposite Party-3.  Therefore, there is unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties.   The complainants never took insurance cover of single premium.   They took insurance cover of monthly premium.  The Opposite Parties 1 &

3/-

2 by payment of Rs.1,19,732/- to Opposite Party-3 have played fraud upon the complainants.  They several times asked the Opposite Parties not to claim Rs.1,19,732/- and write off the same with interest.  But to no effect.  Hence, the present complaint for directions to Opposite Parties to write off sum of Rs.119732/- with interest, pay sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for financial loss, mental and physical harassment and Rs.11,000/- litigation expenses. 

            Notice of the complaint was sent to the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 filed joint reply and Opposite Party-3 filed separate reply.   The Opposite Parties have taken common legal objections of maintainability of complaint,   the complaint is false and frivolous and the complainant  took single premium insurance cover.  However, on merits admitted sanction of loan, disbursement of loan of Rs.4,70,000/- and asserted that the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 are principal group insured and  complainants took loan of  single premium of Rs.59,866/- each totaling Rs.1,19,732/-of insurance cover and authorized the Opposite Parties 1 & 2 to pay Rs.1,19,732/- to Opposite Party-3. Therefore, the Opposite Parties have rightly shown Rs.1,28,000/- outstanding against the complainants.  They denied all other allegations of the complainants and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

            The complainants filed rejoinders to the replies of Opposite Parties.  Wherein they  denied the allegations of the Opposite Parties taken in their replies and reiterated their stand taken in the complaint. 

            When the parties were asked to lead evidence, the complainants, filed their respective affidavits dated 13.1.12.  The complainants in the affidavits dated 13.1.12  reiterated their stand taken in the complaint.  The complainants relied upon copy of allotment letter of Property No.BHSO980068 A382, copy of loan sanction letter dated 26.7.08, copy of  letter dated 30.7.09, copies  of certificate of insurance,Copies of  letters dated 5.10.09 , 30.11.10,18.3.10 and 18.12.09, copy of pass book of saving account and  Copies of membership/proposal forms.   

 

4/-

   The Opposite Party-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Shanti Prakash dated 23.7.11.   He deposed that complaint is devoid of any cause of action and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  The Opposite Party-3 filed affidavit of Sh. V.Srinivas dated 31.8.10 wherein he deposed that group insurance policy is issued in favour of Opposite Parties 1 and 2 under master policy No.83001000203 and as per terms and conditions of group insurance schemes the individual members do not make any proposal for insurance but group policy holder that is financial institution or bank submits single proposal to the company on behalf of individual members of the group.  The privity of contract is between the insurer and the master policy holder.  So there is no deficiency in service on part of the Opposite Party-3 and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  They relied upon copy of master policy, copy of membership form of complainants, copy of COI of complainants, and copy of letter for cancellation of house loan closure  dated 15.9.09.    

            After having heard Ld. Counsel for parties and going through the complaint, replies to the complaint, affidavits of the parties  and all documents placed on record by both the sides, it is clear that the complainants took home loan of Rs.4,70,000/- from Opposite Parties 1 & 2and insured the house with Opposite Party-3.

            The case of the complainants is that they took monthly premium insurance policy from Opposite Party-3.  Whereas case of Opposite Parties is that complainants took one time payment  premium policy.    But except affidavits of complainants there is nothing on record to show that the complainants took monthly premium policy.  Whereas the Opposite Parties to show that Opposite Parties 1 & 2 have taken group insurance policy from  Opposite Party-3 and the complainants became members of the said master policy and as per the terms and conditions of the master policy the complainants  were required to pay one time premium of the insurance policy have placed on record copy of master policy dated 9.2.13 as annexure A, letters of request of complainants for loan advancement for payment of single premium of insurance cover annexures B and C, insurance certificates annexure D and D-1 and letter of cancellation of house loan closure annexure E. 

 

5/-

            From perusal of annexure A it reveals that Opposite Parties 1 & 2  had taken master policy No.83001000203 renewed on 9.10.03 and Opposite Parties 1 & 2 are competent to make members of the scheme. The policy cover is under single premium payment scheme. It further reveals that in case of premature repayment of entire loan amount, the unexpired  portion of single premium would be refunded after deduction of the administrative expenses.  From perusal of annexures B & C it reveals that the complainants prayed for loan of Rs.59,866/- towards payment of single premium amount of the insurance cover with interest applicable to the housing loan and disburse the same to Opposite Party-3 for providing cover as per the terms and conditions of the scheme.   From perusal of annexures D & D1 it reveals that two insurance certificates were issued to complainants by Opposite Party-3 on receipt of one time  premium payment of Rs.59866/-by  each complainant separately.  On the perusal of annexure E it reveals that Opposite Party-1 informed the Opposite Party-3 that insurance cover cannot be cancelled until their loan account is closed.  

            Admittedly, complainants repaid Rs.4,70,000/- with interest of  house loan only.  The complainants did not pay Rs.59866/- each  totaling 1,19,732/- Which comes to Rs.1,28,000/-with interest .  Therefore, Opposite Parties rightly declined request of the complainants for foreclosure of the loan account unless and until sum of Rs.1,28,000/- with up-to-date interest of one time payment of insurance cover repaid by the complainants. 

            The complainants have failed to show that there is any  unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of any of the Opposite Parties.

            Hence, there is no merit in the complaint.  The complaint fails and is dismissed 

Order pronounced on :

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be  consigned to record.

 

 

 

 

 

 (PUNEET LAMBA)                         (URMILA GUPTA)              (R.S.  BAGRI)

  MEMBER                                          MEMBER                            PRESIDENT