Sabyasachi Giri filed a consumer case on 07 May 2024 against SBI in the Cuttak Consumer Court. The case no is CC/125/2022 and the judgment uploaded on 01 Jun 2024.
IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.
C.C. No.125/2022
S/o:Late Ranjoy Kumar Giri,
Permanent resident of Ranipatana,
Back side of Jhadeswar Temple,
P.O: Nayabazar,Dist:Balasore,Odisha-756001
Presently residing At:Plot No.C6/953,
Secgtor-9,Cuttack,Pin-753014.
W/o:Late Ranjoy Kumar Giri,
Permanent resident of Ranipatana,
Back side of Jhadeswar Temple,
P.O: Nayabazar,Dist:Balasore,Odisha-756001,
Presently residing At:Plot No.C6/953,
Sector-9,Cuttack,Pin-753014
Vrs.
Represented through its Chairman,
At:18-19,Devdas Kamlleg Block,
Synergy Building,Bandra Kurla Complex-Bandra East,
Behind National Stock Exchange,
Mumbai-400051,Maharastra,India.
Motiganj Branch,At/PO:Motiganj,
Dist:Balasore-756003
Represented through its CEO,At;Natraj,M.V.Road,
& Wstern Express Highway Junction,
Andheri9East),Mumbai-756003
Represented through its Branch Manager,
At:2nd floor,Stock Exchange Building,
Jayadev Bihar,Chandrasekharpur,
Near RCM College,Bhubaneswar-23,
Dist:Khurda
Present: Sri Debasish Nayak,President.
Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.
Date of filing: 28.06.2022
Date of Order: 07.05.2024
For the complainant: Mr. R.Roy,Adv. & Associates.
For the O.P No.1 : None.
For the O.P no.2: Mr. P.V.Balkrishnan,Adv. & Associates.
For the O.Ps no.2 & 4: Mr. A.K.Mohanty,Adv. & Associates.
Sri Debasish Nayak,President
Case of the complainants as made out from the complaint petition bereft unnecessary details in short is that complainant no.1 is the son of the deceased Ranjoy Kumar Giri whereas complainant no.2 is the wife of the deceased Ranjoy Kumar Giri. Both the complainants are permanent residents of Balasore but at present they are residing within the jurisdiction of Cuttack district. Late Ranjoy Kumar Giri was having a Savings Bank account with O.P No.2 bearing number 10541652810. He had applied for a housing loan of Rs.9,00,000/- for renovation of his house and had given the option of being covered under the SBI Life Optional Group Insurance Policy. Thus, the deceased borrower Ranjoy Kumar Giri had executed loan agreement on 17.12.2012 with O.Ps no.1 & 2 for a sum of Rs.9,10,000/- and had mortgaged his property situated at Jadupur Mouza under Thana no.11,Khata No.338 and plot no.611 measuring for an area of 0.050 decimals in the district of Balasore. Out of the said loan amount, Rs.9,00,000/- was the loan amount whereas Rs.10,000/- was towards the premium charges for the SBI Life Insurance coverage. The loan was to be repaid in 120 number of monthly instalments @ Rs.12,100/- as agreed in the Loan Agreement. The complainants no.1 & 2 being the son and wife of the said borrower Ranjoy Kumar Giri were the guarantors for the said loan as availed by the deceased Ranjoy Kumar Giri and they had also signed the warranty agreement thereto on 17.12.2012. Pursuant to the execution of the documents, the O.Ps no.1 & 2 had generated account number 32720230030 for an amount of Rs.9,00,000/- towards the home loan and account number 32720232902 for Rs.10,000/- towards the premium of the SBI Life Insurance Rinn Rakshya coverage policy. The deceased Ranjoy Kumar Giri was paying the instalments regularly till he expired on 8.10.2020. The complainant no.1 through his letter dated 17.11.2020 had informed O.P no.2 regarding the sad demise of his father Ranjoy Kumar Giri and had requested for closure of the home loan account through the assured sum from the insurance policy claim. But the bank had surprisingly made the complainant no.1 sign on the SBI Life Rinn Rakshya Membership form dated 9.1.2013 in a deceptive manner. In the loan account bearing number 32720230030 it was Ranjoy Kumar Giri who was the borrower and complainant no.1 was only a guarantor alongwith his mother (complainant no.2) but they were never co-borrowers for the loan as availed by Ranjay Kumar Giri. The insurance policy as obtained by late Ranjoy Kumar Giri against his loan was meant for the member borrowers and not for the guarantors under any circumstances. The O.Ps had adopted unfair means by deducting money from the pension account of complainant no.2 in order to close the loan account of late Ranjoy Kumar Giri. Though the complainants had vehemently protested to such unfair practice of the O.Ps, their protest was not taken into account by the O.Ps. The complainants had knocked the door of the Hon’ble High Court of Odisha through writ petition no.W.P (C) 20185 of 2021 seeking a writ of mandamus against the O.P bank. They had also approached to Ombudsman of the bank and ultimately being disgusted they had approached this Commission with their complaint petition seeking direction to the O.Ps in order to pay them a total amount of Rs.23,50,680/- out of which a sum of Rs.1,76,520/- was towards the closure of the loan account, a sum of Rs.74,160/- was for the amount debited from the pension account of complainant no.2 for repaying the instalments of home loan account, a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony and sufferings of the complainants and further a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards cost of their litigation. The complainants have also prayed for any other relief as deemed fit and proper.
Together with their complaint petition, the complainants have annexed copies of several documents in order to prove their case.
2. Out of the four O.Ps as arrayed in this case, having not preferred to contest this case and have refused to accept the notice, O.P no.1 has been set exparte vide order dated 4.8.2022. However, O.Ps no.2,3 & 4 have contested this case but O.P no.2 has filed his separate written version whereas O.Ps no.3 & 4 have jointly filed their written version.
According to the written version of O.P no.2, the case of the complainants is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed. O.P no.2 has submitted through his written version that the loanee Ranjoy Kumar Giri was more than 70 years of age while he availed the home loan and thus he was not eligible for the SBI life Rinn Rakshya Insurance policy as per the scheme of the said policy. Thus, he with the consent of his son Sabya Sachi Giri (complainant no.1) had requested the bank for arranging the SBI life Rinn Rakshya Insurance coverage for complainant no.1 instead of the loanee/borrower Ranjoy Kumar Giri as because complainant no.1 is one of the guarantors of the said home loan and whose liability was co-extensive to that of the borrower in terms of the guarantee agreement dated 17.12.12. It is admitted by O.P no.2 that the borrower Ranjoy Kumar Giri was paying the loan instalments till he died and there was no SBI life Rinn Rakshya Insurance policy in favour of Ranjoy Kumar Giri since because he was not eligible for such insurance policy while availing the said home loan. As such, it is urged by O.P no.2 that the complainants are not entitled to claim any compensation under the said SBI life Rinn Rakshya Insurance policy. Accordingly, it is prayed by O.P no.2 through his written version to dismiss the complaint with cost as filed.
As per the written version of O.Ps no.3 & 4, they used to insure individuals through individual assurances and to groups of individuals such as borrowers and loan of a financial institutions, employees of an undertaking etc. who have some commonality among themselves through Group Life Insurance Schemes. In the said Group Insurance, the privity of the contract is between the Master Policy Holder and the Insurance Company. The contract of insurance is entered in- between the Group policy holder and SBI Life whereunder the individual members are covered. The terms and conditions of the insurance coverage will be issued to the Master Policy Holder and the terms and conditions of the said Master Policy are binding on the insured members as well. Certificate of Insurance is issued to the individual members under the Master Policy. As evidence of their membership of the Group Scheme if they are fulfilling the eligibility criteria and duly pay the premium towards the insurance coverage granted on their lives, they would be issued certificate of Insurance. As per the SBI Life Insurance Corporation Ltd. Group Insurance scheme is for the account holders of SBI where only the borrowers are offered insurance coverage subject to terms and conditions incorporated in the Master Policy which is issued in favour of SBI. The Master Policy bearing number 7000000310 was issued towards the insurance contract with SBI. In the month of January,2013, the insurance coverage was applied and granted on the life of Mr. Sabya Sachi Giri with regard to loan account number 32720230030 if the said complainant or the deceased Ranjoy Kumar Giri had any issue regarding the same, they should have raised the same in the said month only. It is the contention of O.Ps no.3 & 4 through their written version that the insured Mr. Sabya Sachi Giri who is complainant no.1 in this case, will be entitled to the sum assured only in case of his death and since because the life of Ranjoy Kumar Giri was not insured by then with regard to the loan account number 32720230030, the insurance claim as made for the deceased Ranjoy Kumar Giri was not allowed. According to O.Ps no.3 & 4 since when the insured Sabya Sachi Giri(complainant no.1) is alive, the insurance claim as made here in this case cannot be sanctioned. As such, it is prayed by O.Ps no.3 & 4 through their written version to dismiss the complaint petition as filed by the complainants with cost since because it is not maintainable.
Together with the written version, O.Ps no.3 & 4 have annexed copies of several documents in order to support their stand.
O.Ps no.3 & 4 have also filed evidence affidavit through one Miss Dhanya K.P. who has claimed in her evidence affidavit to be the authorised representative of SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. While perusing the contents of her evidence affidavit as filed in this case by the said Ms. Dhanya K.P, it is noticed that the same is a reiteration of the averments as made by O.Ps no.3 & 4 in their written version.
3. Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.Ps no.3 & 4, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.
i. Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?
ii. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?
iii. Whether the complainants are entitled to the reliefs as claimed by them?
Issue no.II.
Out of the three issues, issue no. ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.
After perusing the complaint petition, the written version, written notes of submissions as filed from both the sides, evidence affidavits filed by both the parties as well as the copies of documents available in the case record, it is noticed that admittedly Ranjoy Kumar Giri is a loanee who had obtained home loan to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/- for renovating his house. He had availed the said loan from O.Ps no.1 & 2 and thereby had entered into a loan agreement with them on 17.11.2020. His son Sabya Sachi Giri and his wife Pranati Giri are the guarantors in the said loan of Ranjoy Kumar Giri who are complainants also in this case. While availing the said home loan, insurance was offered to the borrower but according to O.Ps no.1 & 2, the loanee Ranjoy Kumar Giri was of 70 years in age for which he was unable to be covered as a policy holder for the said insurance scheme and thus as agreed upon his son Sabya Sachi Giri who is the guarantor to the said loan of his father Ranjoy Kumar Giri; became the policy holder. It is not in dispute that the premium of Rs.10,000/- was paid towards such insurance policy. It is also admitted fact that the loanee Ranjoy Kumar Giri was regularly paying the instalments till he died. After the death of Ranjoy Kumar Giri, both of his guarantors Sabya Sachi Giri and Pranati Giri had requested the O.Ps to close the loan account from the insurance assured amount. In this context, the contention of the insurer who are O.Ps no.3 & 4 here in this case is that the complainant no.1 Sabya Sachi Giri was the life insured relating to Loan Account number 32720230030. When the claim was advanced, it was noticed that the life insured was alive that is to say, Sabya Sachi Giri the assured of the policy holder was alive. So the assured sum as regards to the policy was not disbursed. The O.P no.2 has stated that since because the loanee Ranjoy Kumar Giri was 70 years in age while availing the home loan to the tune of Rs.9,00,000/-, on his consent as well as with the consent of his son Sabya Sachi Giri who is also the guarantor to the said loan of Ranjoy Kumar Giri, the said guarantor Sabya Sachi Giri was insured relating to the home loan account of his father bearing number 32720230030. While advancing arguments here in this case, the learned counsel for the O.P bank when questioned by this Commission that if there is any ruling to the effect that on the consent of the borrower who had crossed the age of 70 years, his guarantor son can be insured in the said SBI Life Insurance Policy; no such rulings were putforth nor any convincing reply was made to that effect. It is admitted fact that the SBI is the Master Policy Holder in the Group Insurance Scheme which is extended to the loanees/borrowers of the SBI. It is quite clear that the Master Policy Holder is to adhere to the rules and regulations of the loan agreement and the insurance agreement as well. In absence of any terms and conditions to insure another person other than the borrower or loanee, cannot be said to be done inconsonance with the terms and conditions of the banking laws or the insurance laws. O.Ps no.3 & 4 being the insurer, they are only to insure the life of the person whose name and details is provided to them by the Master Policy Holder/SBI and they have no choice at all either for any guarantor or for any borrower. Thus, it is made out clearly here in this case that the SBI being the Master Policy Holder should not have deviated from the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and should not have suggested the name of the guarantor in lieu of the borrower even though they have consented for the same being father and son. Such consent even though putforth by the loanee or borrower or by the that the guarantor is to be insured in lieu of the borrower/loanee, such proposal should have been discouraged or turned down by the Master Policy Holder/SBI. Thus, considering such facts and circumstances of this case, keeping in mind the irresponsible, rather callous attitude of the Master Policy older/State Bank of India, this Commission comes to an irresistible conclusion that the SBI has definitely acted whimsically, unilaterally and rather arbitrarily by deviating from the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Accordingly, this Commission finds O.Ps no.1 & 2 to be deficient in their service as alleged by the complainants. This issue thus goes in favour of the complainants.
Issue No.i.
It is the contention of O.P no.2 that the complainants are not the residents of Cuttack district rather they reside at Balasore for which this Commission lacks jurisdiction to try their case here at Cuttack. While perusing the complaint petition, it is noticed that both the complainants who are guarantors Sabya Sachi Giri and Pranati Giri have sworn in affidavit together with their complaint petition that they reside at present at Plot No.C-6/953, Sector-9, Cuttack, Pin-753014. Thus, when the complainants have sworn in affidavit to be residing at Cuttack which is in the jurisdiction of this Commission and such contention challenging the jurisdiction and maintainability of the complaint petition thus do not arise. As such, this issue also goes in favour of the complainants.
Issue no.iii.
Keeping in mind, the facts and circumstances of this case, this Commission thinks it proper that the complainants are ofcourse entitled to the reliefs as sought for by them but to a reasonable extent. Hence it is so ordered;
ORDER
The case is decreed on contest against the O.Ps no.2,3 & 4 and exparte against O.P no.1. O.Ps no.1 & 2 are found to be jointly and severally liable here in this case. Both the O.Ps no.1 & 2 are thus directed to pay the complainants a sum of Rs.1,76,520/- which they had paid to close their loan account alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum with effect from 17.11.2020 till the total amount is quantified. The O.Ps no.1 & 2 are further directed to pay the complainant no.2 a sum of Rs.74,160/- which they had debited from her pension account alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum from the date of such debit as made till the amount is quantified. The O.Ps are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainants as compensation for their mental agony and sufferings and also to bear their litigation expenses by paying them another sum of Rs.50,000/-. This order is to be carried out within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Order pronounced in the open court on this the 7th day of May,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.
Sri Debasish Nayak
President
Sri Sibananda Mohanty
Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.