DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

PATIALA.

                                      Consumer Complaint No.341 of 23.8.2018

                                      Decided on:       15.2.2019

Amandeep Kansal S/o late Sh.Tilak Raj, R/o 534/6, Partap Colony, Samana, District Patiala.

                                                                   …………...Complainant

                                      Versus

1.       State Bank of Patiala (now State Bank of India) Main Branch Samana

          (Patiala)

2.       SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd, Branch Chhoti Baradari, Patiala.

                                                                   …………Opposite Parties

                                      Complaint under Section 12 of the

                                      Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

                                      Sh. M.P.Singh Pahwa, President

                                      Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member

                                      Sh.B.S.Dhaliwal, Member      

ARGUED BY

                                      Sh.Amandeep Kansal, complainant in person.

                                      Sh.Ram Gopal Garg, counsel for OP No.1.

                                      Sh.Puneet Gupta, counsel for OP No.2.                       

 ORDER

                                     M. P. SINGH  PAHWA, PRESIDENT

1. This is the complaint filed by Amandeep Kansal (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) against State Bank of Patiala and another (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).
2. Brief facts of the case, as extracted from the complaint, are as under:
3. Tilak Raj, father of the complainant availed house loan of Rs.2,50,000/-from OP No.1 on 28.9.2005 vide his account No.65002122402.This loan was @7.5% floating for repayment in 10 years. The loan was to be repaid in monthly installment of Rs.3438/-.The loan was got insured from OP No.2 through OP No.1 on payment of Rs.17255/- as premium. Tilak Raj died on 28.1.2013.
4. It  is pleaded that as per insurance policy, father of the complainant was to start monthly installment of Rs.3438/- after moratorium period of 12 months till his death. Thereafter the outstanding amount was to be paid by OP no.2.His father expired seven years four months after start of the policy. As per banker statement  a sum  of Rs.71403+20672 i.e. Rs.92075/-was outstanding against Tilk Raj at the time of his death. It is also revealed by the complainant that Tilak Raj was having another home loan account No.55040995624 and a sum of Rs.20672/- was outstanding against that account. It is pleaded that as per insurance rules, at the time of death of Tilak Raj, the amount should be Rs.134301/-. It is alleged that OP No.2 in connivance with OP No.1 has mentioned date  of death incorrectly  for three times which is as under:

August/2015, March,2016 and May,2018.

The due amount is revealed as under

71403/-+28027=2836 = 102266/-

5. Complainant also alleged that he made more than one lac e-mails to the senior officers of both the OPs. All the bank officials are public servant as per Section 46A of  Banking  Regulation Act,1949.
6. Complainant has further pleaded that if the policy was made as per schedule, a sum of Rs.134301/- would have been due. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs.134301-92075=42226/- with interest @1.5% per month.
7. It is also alleged that true balance was to be maintained by OP No.1 as the insurance was through OP No.1.
8. On this background of the facts the complainant has claimed following reliefs:
   1. Litigation expeses = Rs.5000/-
      2. Deficiency of serviceRs.50,000/-
3. Mental agony   Rs.1,00,000/-
4. Balance death claim Rs. 42226/- ( Plus 1.5% interest per month)

Totaling Rs.2,97226 + 1.5% per month interest. Hence this complaint.

9. Upon notice OPs appeared through their respective counsels and contested the complaint by filing separate written replies.
10. In reply, OP No.1 raised preliminary objections that the complaint is not within the period limitation. It is liable to be dismissed on this score alone; that as per bank record of loan and copy of ration card submitted by Tilak Raj there was five successors namely Krishna Devi(wife),Rohit Kumar(son),Amandeep (son) Puja Rani(daughter) and Arti Rani (daughter).Tilak Raj made his wife Krishna Devi his nominee and duly signed the document. The complainant is neither the  nominee nor is sole successor. He has concealed this fact and  filed the complaint being the only successor..No succession certificate is attached with the complaint. As such the complaint is not maintainable. The complaint has not been verified by the complainant and is liable to be dismissed. That the claim regarding insurance was lodged by one Rohit Kumar. The complainant approached the OP. He was replied accordingly vide letter dated 17.5.2018.The complainant had also concealed this fact. The complicated questions of fact and law are involved in the matter. As such civil court is competent to decide the matter.
11. On merits, it is admitted that Tilak Raj had availed house loan of Rs.2,25,000/- out of sanctioned loan amount of Rs.2,50,000/- vide account No.65002122402 from OP No.1The premium installment was fixed at Rs.3448/- per month for repayment of the loan amount. This loan was got insured by Tilak Raj by SBI Life Insurance Limited after depositing Rs.17255/- as insurance premium. He made the nomination in the name of his wife Krishna Devi. All the other averments of the complaint are denied.
12. It is further revealed that one of the successor of Tilak Raj namely Rohit Kumar, approached  the OP on 27.10.2014 for settlement of loan with insurance . He  submitted the  death certificate of Sh.Tilak Raj dated 1.10.2014.The case was sent to the insurance company for settlement on the same day i.e. 27.10.2014.The settlement has been made regarding  account No.65002122402.Accordingly loan account was settled on the request of Rohit Kumar. There is no dispute regarding this loan. It is also asserted that on 31.1.2013 the total outstanding of the account No. 65002122402 was Rs.72004/-and the total outstanding  of account No.55040995624 as on 31.1.2013 was Rs.20672/-.The amount of loan which was under insurance was settled by the insurance company as per rules..The complainant has harassed OP No.1 by making false complaints and do not want to settle the loan account No. 55040995624 against which sum of Rs.11560.56 with interest upto 18.12.2018 is due. After controverting all the other averments of the complainant OP No.1 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
13.  OP no.2 in  its separate written reply also raised preliminary objections that the outstanding loan account no.65002122402 as per Banker’s certificate was Rs.71402.64.Accordingly OP paid an amount of Rs.71403/- to the Master Policy Holder. Thereafter on receipt of  short payment query letter from master policy holder and original EMI schedule EMI schedule alongwith bank account statement the OP paid further amount of Rs.28027/- and receipt of the amount of Rs.71403/- and Rs.28027/- has been duly admitted by the complainant. Thus the present complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
14. As per schedule  22.7 sum assured, “The sum assured means the outstanding home loan account, including interest in the name of the member in the books of grantees and calculated as per original EMI repayment schedule. The OP No.2 has already made the payment as per original EMI schedule as per terms and conditions of the policy. Thus the complaint is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed.
15. It is further pleaded that in a group insurance policy, the privity of contract is between the master policy holder i.e. State Bank of Patiala  and the insurer i.e. SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. As per the master policy, the sum assured is equivalent  to the outstanding amount as on the date of death as per original EMI schedule. The amount as per original EMI schedule  is already settled and nothing is more payable under the said policy. The complaint is not tenable and deserves to be dismissed. The prayer of the complainant is  outside the scope  of the master policy which is evidence of the contract. The insurance cover is also equal to the outstanding amount with interest as on the date of death as per the original EMI schedule. The insurance cover was granted  for Rs.2,50,000/-.However, the sum assured will taper down as the EMIs are paid off. Hence the sum assured during the policy at any point of time will be the outstanding loan amount as on the date of death as per original EMI schedule. This contractual obligation of making the payment has been duly discharged by OP No.1.Nothing was payable under the policy. There is no cause of action for filing this complaint. The complaint is totally misplaced and ill conceived. It is an attempt to  malign OP No.2. That OPs No.1&2 are  separate legal entities . It is not liable for any act of omission or commission on the part of OP No.1.The complaint did not fall  within the definition of  Sections 2(1)(c) and  2 (1)(g) of the C.P.Act.
16. On merits it is admitted that Tilak Raj, deceased life assured had applied vide his membership form dated 28.9.2005 for grant of  insurance cover under master policy No.83001000301 issued to the State Bank of Patiala with respect to his loan account No. 65002122402 and accordingly  he was insured under  master policy. The date of commencement was 28.9.2005.The cover is  of diminishing nature such that the insurance  cover tapers down as the EMIs of the loan are paid off. It is not liable for any amount due to EMI default or change of rate of interest etc. Even though the insurance cover granted was of Rs.2,50,000/-initially. The contractual obligation of OP No.2 is  to pay the outstanding loan amount as on the date of death. The same has been duly paid. Infurther reply the OP has reiterated its stand as taken in the preliminary objection and denied all the other averments of the complainant.
17. It is also pleaded that OP No.2 received letter dated 11.1.2016 stating that due to payment of EMI in advance by the DLA the outstanding loan amount was Rs.71403/- as on the date of death. However, as per the original EMI schedule the outstanding loan amount would have been Rs.95026.68 as on the date of death. Therefore, the balance amount of Rs.23623.68(95026-71403) alongwith interest is claimed by the complainant. The bank OP No.1 also sent original EMI schedule alongwith bank account statement with the letter dated  111.2016.Hence the OP no.2 paid the amount of Rs.28027/- to the complainant vide cheque No.986794 dated 14.3.2016. Thereafter on receipt of letter regarding delay in  settlement of claim and short settlement of claim, OP no.2 replied vide letters dated 22.2.2016, 24.5.2016,14.6.2016 and 2.6.2017. To support these submissions, the OP No.2 has also quoted case laws , the reference of which is also not considered to be necessary. In the end OP No.2 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
18. The parties were afforded opportunity to produce their evidence.
19. In support of  his case, complainant tendered in to evidence his affidavit, Ex.CA, copy of interest rate, Ex.C1, copy of letter dated 17.5.2018,Ex.C2, copy of IRDA order, Ex.C3,copy of certificate of insurance, Ex.C4, copy of reply under RTI, Ex.C5, copy of agreement, Ex.C6, copy of schedule, Ex.C7,copy of bank schedule, Ex.C8 and closed the evidence.
20. The OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Jatinder Kaur, Ex.OPB, copy of ration card, Ex.OP16,copy of schedule, Ex.OP17,copy of nomination, copy of  death certificate, Ex.OP18,copy of claim form, Ex.OP19, copy of bank statement, Ex.OP20copy of statement of account, Ex.OP21, copy of statement of account, Ex.OP22, copy of title deed, Ex.OP23,Ex.OP24, copy of letter dated 17.5.2018,Ex.OP25.
21. The OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of  Ms Neelam Singh, Ex.OPA,  copy of master policy, Ex.OP1, copy of membership form, Ex.OP2, copy of certificate of insurance Ex.OP3,  copy of claim intimation, Ex.OP4, copy of banker certificate,Ex.OP5, copy of letter dated 11.8.2015, Ex.OP6, copy of letter dated 7.12.2015, Ex.OP7,  copy of letter dated 24.12.2015, Ex.OP8,  copy of letter dated 11.1.2016,Ex.OP9, copy of  original EMI schedule, Ex.OP10, copy of payment letter dated 20.3.2016,Ex.OP11, copy of letter dated 22.2.2016,Ex.OP12, copy of letter dated 24.5.2016,Ex.OP13, copy of letter dated 14.6.2016,Ex.OP14, copy of letter dated 2.6.2017 Ex.OP15 and closed the evidence.
22. We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the file carefully.
23. The complainant has reiterated his stand as taken in the complaint. It is further submitted that as per EMI schedule,Ex.OP10 also, his father was required to pay EMI of Rs.3438/- only but his father used to pay more than the EMI. The outstanding amount was insured by OP No.2. The OP No.2 has also admitted that the sum assured means outstanding loan amount including interest and to be calculated  as per original EMI payment schedule. The excess amount paid by the father of the complainant was not to be taken into consideration for the purpose of sum assured. As such the OP was under obligation to refund the excess amount paid by his father till the date of his death, which occurred on 28.1.2013. As such the complaint be accepted as prayed for.
24. The outstanding amount against father of the complainant was only Rs.92075/-.It calculated Rs.20672/- of other loan account. The insured amount to be paid by the OP was to be Rs.1,34,301/-.As such the excess amount of Rs.42,226/- was to be credited to the account of his father but OP has unnecessary withheld this amount. As such complainant  is also entitled to interest @18% per annum, on this amount. The complaint be accepted as prayed for.
25. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP has submitted that the complainant  has not approached the Forum with clean hands. He has concealed the material facts .He has not made party other legal heirs of deceased Tilak Raj. Earlier the matter was raised by Rohit Kumar, brother of the complainant and the same was already settled. Statement  of Account Exs.OP1/21 and OP1/22 prove that the loan account was settled on 5.4.2016 and the balance is reflected nil. Therefore, relationship of consumer and service provider came to an end on 5.4.2016. This settlement was by Rohit Kumar ,brother of the complainant. Now this complaint has been filed  for the same matter on 23.8.2018 i.e. after more than two years  from settlement of account. The complaint is barred by time for this reason.
26. It is further submitted by the ld. counsel for the OP that ever otherwise the matter was raised by the complainant also before the authorities and he was clarified the entire picture by letter dated 17.5.2018,Ex.C2. Now nothing is payable to the complainant.
27. We have given careful consideration to the rival submissions.
28. This complaint has been filed by the complainant being son of Tilak Raj. He has not disclosed about other legal heirs of Tilak Raj. He has not claimed to be alone  legal heir of Tilak Raj. The OP has revealed in the written version that Rohit Kumar, approached OP No.1 for settlement of the loan with insurance and he submitted death certificate of Tilak Raj dated 1.10.2014. The matter was settled and statement of account, Ex.OP1 prove that the balance in the loan account of Tilak Raj was reflected as zero on 5.4.2016. Therefore, the relationship of consumer and service provider came to an end on 5.4.2016. Even otherwise if, Rohit Kumar was not satisfied with the settlement effected on 5.4.2016, he was to challenge this fact  within the prescribed period of two years. This complaint has been filed by Amandeep Kansal. Rohit Kumar has not challenged the settlement. Therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation.
29. The complaint is beyond limitation. Still the matter is examined on merits also. The complainant has relied upon copy of letter dated 17.5.2018,Ex.C2.This letter was addressed to the complainant. Perusal of this letter revealed that it is reply to the complaint made by the complainant regarding short death claim and this letter  also clears the entire picture. It is revealed in this letter that the complainant  has applied revised rate of interest from time to time but EMI remained unchanged. It is further clarified that if revised rate of interest is applied for calculations, then EMI should also be changed notionally alongwith change in rate of interest for calculating notionally outstanding balance on the date  of death. It is also clarified that keeping the EMI unchanged would extend total repayment period beyond the original loan tenure of 10 years and his contention was held not logical.
30. The complainant has also placed on record copy of interest schedule,Ex.C8 from September,2005 onward till August,2015.This schedule also reveal that previously rate of interest was 7.5% then it was revised to 8.25% in September,2006. Then onward it was increasing from 8.75%,9.50%,10% upto January,2013. This fact further corroborates the version of the OP that it there was increase in rate  of interest the EMI was also to increase. The OP has also placed on record copy of letter, Exs.OP11&12, which prove that initially the claim was settled for Rs.71403/- but subsequently a sum of Rs.28022/- was also found payable and this amount was also paid in the account of the deceased Tilak Raj. This fact is also not disputed.
31. The net conclusion is that the complainant has failed to  prove deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the OPs. Therefore, we have no option except to dismiss the complaint. Complaint is dismissed accordingly.

Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost under the Rules. Thereafter, file be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

ANNOUNCED

DATED: 15.2.2019      

 B.S.Dhaliwal                         Inderjeet Kaur              M. P. Singh Pahwa

       Member                                 Member                                      President