Haryana

StateCommission

A/635/2014

IDBI Bank Ltd - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smt. Kusum Lata - Opp.Party(s)

T K Joshi

04 Oct 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

                                                         First Appeal No.635 of 2014

Date of Institution: 23.07.2014                                                              Date of Decision: 04.10.2016

 

1.      IDBI Bank Ltd. through its authorized officer, Pawan Kuman,  Manager, Panipat Branch office, at Khasra No.3673/3, Gopal Furnishing Pvt. Ltd., opp. Hotel Mid-Town, G.T. Road, Near Sanjay Chowk, Panipat Haryana.

 

2.      Branch Manager, IDBI Bank Ltd., SCO No.218-219, Sector-12, Urban Estate Karnal, through Pawan Kuman, Manager, Panipat Branch office, at Khasra No.3673/3, Gopal Furnishing Pvt. Ltd., opp. Hotel Mid-Town, G.T. Road, Near Sanjay Chowk, Panipat Haryana.

 

…..Appellants

 

Versus

 

Smt. Kusum Lata widow of Shri Roshan Lal resident of Kachwa, Tehsil and District Karnal.

                                      …..Respondent

 

CORAM:             Mr. R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member.

                             Mrs. Urvashi Agnihotri, Member.                                                                                                                                        

Present:               Mr. T.K. Joshi, Advocate counsel for appellants.

Mr. Rohit Goswami, Advocate counsel for respondent.

                                                   O R D E R

R.K.BISHNOI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

          It was alleged by the complainant that her husband obtained home loan of Rs.1,21,332/- vide loan account No.0351675100000985 and mortgage loan of Rs.7,00,000/- vide loan account No.0351675100001038.  It was told by opposite parties (O.Ps.) that if the loan was got  insured from insurance company the loan  would be paid  in case of death of loanee.  Her husband accepted that proposal and issued cheque of Rs.9912/- bearing No.151218 dated 04.04.2011 drawn on State Bank of Indian Mall Road, in favour of the O.Ps. for the payment of insurance premium.            It was told by O.Ps. that premium was deposited and insurance policy would be received shortly.  They believe their word due to continuous  dealing.  Her  husband died on 11.04.2011 and thereafter she wrote letter dated 28.05.2011 to O.Ps. to waive loan and issue No Due Certificate but it was replied that cheque given by her husband (Roshan Lal) was presented alongwith the proposal form to their insurance officer in Chandigarh on 11.04.2011.  It was received on 12.04.2011.  In the meantime they came to know that Roshan Lal expired on 11.04.2011 and concerned insurance officer had returned proposal form and cheque to them on 15.04.2011. When he issued cheque on 04.04.2011 he  became entitled for the benefit of waiver and reimbursement of the loan and O.Ps. wrongly declined her request. 

2.      In reply it was alleged by O.Ps. that at the time of execution of loan documents on 04.04.2011 initially Roshan Lal (since deceased) refused to take home secure protection policy of Rs.seven Lacs, but, lateron agreed to obtain the same. Though he issued cheque of Rs.9,912/- but asked to present the same after 10.04.2011. Due to this reason the cheque was handedover on 11.04.2011 but Roshan Lal had expired on that date.  Due to this reason cheque was returned and policy was not issued.  As no insurance policy was in existence, complainant was not entitled for the benefit of waiver of reimbursement of loan.  Other averments were also denied and requested to dismiss the complaint.

3.      After hearing both the parties learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Karnal (In short “District Forum”) allowed the complaint vide impugned order dated 23.06.2014 and directed the opposite parties to waive the loan of Rs.Seven lakhs alongwith interest and also directed to issue No dues Certificate.  OPs are also burdened with a sum of Rs.25000/- for harassment besides legal fee and litigation expenses of Rs.2200/-.

4.      Feeling aggrieved therefreom O.Ps. have preferred this appeal.

5.      Arguments heard.  File perused.

6.      Learned counsel for complainant vehemently argued that when cheque was issued on 04.04.2012 it was the duty of the O.Ps. to submit the same for encashment. When they came to know that Roshan Lal had died on 11.04.2011 they obtained letter Ex.R-2 and district forum rightly opined to this effect.  The appeal is without merits and the same be dismissed.

7.      This argument is of no avail.  It is not disputed that  Roshan Lal did not issue letter dated 04.04.2011 Ex.R-2.  It was specifically mentioned therein that cheque issued by him was to be presented after 10.04.2011.  For ready reference relevant portion of the letter is reproduced as under:-

“I have been sanctioned a loan against property of  Rs.7.0 lacs. I am need of money for purchasing a property for my son. I request to Bank cheque No.151218 for Rs.9912/- for insurance premium after 10^th April 2011. I expect to receive my salary after 10^th April. So please consider my request.”

 As per this letter Roshan Lal advised O.Ps. to present cheque after 10.04.2011.  In such a situation O.Ps. were bound to go by the advice of their customer. They cannot force anyone not to giving direction, when the cheque should be submitted.  Regarding this letter it was wrongly opined by learned district forum that O.Ps. did not present the cheque negligently on 04.04.2011 and that letter Ex.R-2 was procured after the knowledge about death of Roshan Lal.  As per facts metioned above it is clear that Roshan Lal died on 11.04.2011 whereas this letter was written on 04.04.2011.  How it was possible for the O.Ps. to know that Roshan Lal will met with an accident on 11.04.2011.  There is no evidence on the file to prove that letter Ex.R-2 was false or fabricated. In this way there was no negligence on the part of the O.Ps. by presenting cheque on 11.04.2011.  Before the cheque could be encashed and policy is issued Roshan Lal expired on 11.04.2011. When there was no contract in between the complainant and O.Ps. about reimbursement or waiving of the loan they were not supposed to adjust the same.  The contract comes into force when insured policy is issued.

8.      Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects and wrongly allowed the complaint. Resultantly impugned order dated 23.06.2014 is set aside.  Appeal is allowed and complaint is dismissed.

9.      The statutory amount of Rs.13,600/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellant against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules.

 

October 04th, 2016

Mrs.Urvashi Agnihotri, Member, Addl.Bench

R.K.Bishnoi, Judicial Member Addl.Bench

S.K.