By.Sri.Ananthakrishnan. P. S, President:

            This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

2.  The complainant’s case in brief is as follows:-

The complainants are wife and children of late Dileep Kumar who had availed a housing loan of Rs.11 lakhs from State Bank of India, Mananthavady branch in the month of February 2012 by executing loan documents creating equitable mortgage on his property to an extend of 0.1060 hectre in Re. Survey 233/3 of Edavaka village by depositing his title deed.  At the time of availing the loan, the 1^st opposite party insisted him to take property insurance and life insurance with 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties as a condition precedent for the disbursement of loan.  The 1^st opposite party assured that they will do the formalities for taking insurance with 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. Thereafter, 1^st opposite party deducted Rs.8,414/- towards property insurance premium and Rs.6,200/- towards life insurance premium from the account of Dileep Kumar. Thereafter, the 1^st opposite party informed that the property insurance has been taken with 2^nd opposite party for a sum of Rs.16 lakhs and that life of Dileep Kumar has also been validly insured with 3^rd opposite party.  Therefore Dileep Kumar as well as the complainants were under the impression and bonafide belief that the life and property of the borrower are covered by valid insurance policies. While so, Dileep Kumar had been missing from his residence on 14.11.2016 and thereafter his dead body was recovered by police from a nearby place. Then, the complainants contacted the 1^st opposite party and gave information with regard to the death of Dileep Kumar. 1^st opposite party assured that they will take steps to get the insurance amount. Thereafter there was no response from 1^st opposite party, even though the complainants contacted him many time.  When the complainant contacted the 3^rd opposite party, they have also not given any valid information.  Even then,  1^st opposite party forced the 1^st complainant to continue the loan remittance and he obtained her signatures in blank papers.  He also threatened that he will take coercive steps against complainants to get back the loan amount.  Since the borrower had been taken valid insurance, the liability of the complainants over the loan ought to have been cleared with the insured amount and that the remaining amount ought to have been given to the complainants.  Therefore the complainants sent lawyer notices to opposite parties on 15.02.2017 demanding Rs.50 lakhs as damages with cost of the notice.  1^st and 3^rd  opposite parties sent false and evasive reply. 2^nd opposite party has not sent any reply.  Hence this complaint to get the insurance claim and Rs.20 lakhs from the opposite parties for the damages, loss and injury due to their deficiency in service with cost. 

3.  The 1^st opposite party filed version and additional version contenting as follows:-

            This opposite party is an unnecessary party. They admitted the loan transaction between themselves and late Dileep Kumar. But they denied that at the time of availing the loan, they compelled the late Dileep Kumar to take property insurance and life insurance with 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.  They admitted that they have deducted Rs.8,414/- and Rs.6,200/-  from the account of Dileep Kumar and transferred those amount to 2^nd opposite party towards property insurance and 3^rd opposite party towards life insurance. This opposite party has no other role or liability in insuring the life or property of the proposer. The amount sent to the  3^rd opposite party was returned and it was informed to Dileep Kumar. So, the life of Dileep Kumar was not insured. Now, there is only a property insurance in favour of Dileep Kumar. They denied all other allegations levelled against them. Hence complaint is to be dismissed.

4.  The 2^nd opposite party filed version which is in short as follows:

The late Dileep Kumar has insured his residential building in R.S. No. 233/3 of Edavaka Village, Wayanad District on 31.01.2013 for Rs. 16,00,000/-  for the period from 31.01.2013 to 30.01.2033. The said policy is not a life insurance policy. So, this opposite party is an unnecessary party and so, complaint against this opposite party is to be dismissed.

              5.  3^rd opposite party filed version and additional version which are in short as follows:-

            They admitted that the 1^st opposite party sent a proposal and transferred the amount for insuring the life of Dileep Kumar. But the proposal was not accepted due to non receipt of the requirement from him within permissible processing time. So, the amount received towards proposal deposit was refunded as per cheque No. 627910 dated 03.05.2013. So there was no concluded contract of insurance between the deceased and 3^rd opposite party. Therefore there is no valid insurance in favour of late Dileep Kumar. Hence there is no customer - service provider relationship between the deceased and this opposite party. They denied all other allegations levelled against them. Hence, this complaint is to be dismissed.

6. On the above contentions, the points raised for consideration are:-

1.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? 

2.  Reliefs and Cost.

7.  The evidence in this case consists of oral testimonies of PW1, OPW1, Ext. A1 to A8 and Ext.B1 to B2. Heard both sides.

8. Point No.1:-  Complainants claim insurance amount and Rs.20 lakhs as damages alleging deficiency in service on 1^st to 3^rd opposite parties.  It is an admitted fact that the husband of the 1^st complainant, Dileep Kumar availed housing loan from 1^st opposite party and at that time, they deducted premium amount for life insurance and property insurance. Admittedly, Dileep Kumar is no more. The specific case of the complainants is that even though late Dileep Kumar took life insurance, the 3^rd opposite party has not entertained their life insurance claim. They alleged that after the death of Dileep Kumar, the 1^st complainant contacted the 1^st opposite party and she was informed that the life of Dileep Kumar was not insured. According to 1^st opposite party, since Dileep Kumar had not complied the directions of 3^rd opposite party, they returned the insurance premium and it was informed to Dileep Kumar.

            9. To prove the case of the complainants, PW1, 1^st complainant was examined. To prove the case of opposite parties, OPW1, manager of 1^st opposite party was examined.  The specific case of the 1^st opposite party is that they informed about the return of the premium amount to late Dileep Kumar and therefore according to opposite parties, there is no deficiency on their part.  OPW1 affirmed this fact. Ext. B1 is the copy of the intimation about the refund of proposed premium amount. PW1 admitted that B1 is addressed to Dileep Kumar. She has no case that late Dileep Kumar has not received the said letter. So, it is evident that due to non receipt of some requirements, 3^rd opposite party was unable to process or issue life insurance policy in favour of late Dileep Kumar. The evidence of PW1 revealed that late Dileep Kumar and PW1 have not received any life insurance policy. On the other hand PW1 admitted that they have received the property insurance policy. So, admittedly they have not received any life insurance policy which has been allegedly taken in the name of Dileep Kumar.  So also, materials available here would go to show there was no valid life insurance policy in the name of Dileep Kumar at the time of his death.  On the other hand there is property insurance in the name of late Dileep Kumar and it is still valid.  Therefore overall evidence would go to show that there no deficiency of service on the opposite parties.  So the point is answered in favour of opposite parties. 

            10. Point No.2.  Since, Point No.1 is found against the complainants, the complainants are not entitled to get any relief as prayed.  So, point No.2 is decided accordingly.

            In the result, the complaint is dismissed but without costs.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 7^th day of December 2021.

Date of Filing:-18.07.2017.

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

APPENDIX.

Witness for the complainants:-

PW1.              Dhanya. M. V.                                 Draftsman, Soil Conservation

Department.

Witness for the Opposite Parties:-

OPW1.          Padmanabhan.                               Bank Manager.

Exhibits for the complainants:

A1.                  Copy of FIR.                                                 Dt:15.11.2016.

A2.                  Copy of Death Certificate.                       Dt:08.12.2016.

A3.                  Lawyer Notice.                                            Dt:15.02.2017.

A4.                  Reply Notice.                                               Dt:15.03.2017.

A5.                  Legal Notice.                                                Dt:02.03.2017.

A6.                  Letter.                                                            Dt:20.02.2017.

A7.                  Letter.                                                            Dt:28.01.2013.

A8.                  Statement of Account.

Exhibits for the opposite parties:-

B1.                  Copy of Letter.                                            Dt:07.05.2013.

B2.                  Copy of filled SBI Life- RiNn Raksha

                        Membership Form.                                   Dt:10.02.2013.      

PRESIDENT   :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

MEMBER       :Sd/-

/True Copy/

                                                                                                              Sd/-

                                                                                        SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT,

                                                                                                CDRC, WAYANAD.