Punjab

Sangrur

CC/621/2014

Dr. Pratibha Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S. Shergill

16 Apr 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                       

                                       

                                                Complaint No.    621

                                                Instituted on:      17.11.2014

                                                Decided on:       16.04.2015

 

Dr. Pratibha Bansal wife of Dr. Ravinder Kumar Bansal C/o Bansal Heart Hospital, Haripura Road, Sangrur.

                                                        ..Complainant

                                        Versus

State Bank of India, Main Branch Sangrur through its Chief Manager.

                                                        ..Opposite party

For the complainant    :       Shri G.S.Shergill,  Advocate.

For opposite party      :       Shri R.K. Mishra, Advocate.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Dr. Pratibha Bansal, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite party (referred to as OP in short) on the ground that the complainant obtained a housing loan from the OP under account number 00000032821860252, which the complainant has been paying regularly.

 

2.             The complainant is aggrieved on deducting an amount of Rs.68,568/- by the OP without any intimation and without disclosing the reason thereof. The complainant approached the OP a number of times for refund of the amount so deducted from his account, but all in vain. On inquiry, it came to the knowledge of the complainant that the OP had opened another loan account for arranging the insurance policy amount, whereas the complainant never opted for any insurance or never consented to open any account for taking loan for effecting the alleged insurance.  It is further stated that the second account has been wrongly opened by the OP. The complainant never received any insurance policy from the OP.  Further it is averred that the complainant got issued legal notice dated 12.11.2014 upon the OP, but the OP did not refund the full amount.    Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complainant has prayed that the OP be directed to refund to the complainant the amount of Rs.68,568/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply, legal objections have been taken up by the OP on the grounds that the present complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint, that this Forum has no jurisdiction and that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands.  On merits, it is admitted that the loan was granted to the complainant.  Further it is stated that at the time of executing the loan documents, the complainant gave a specific declaration and undertaking authorising the OP bank to get the loan account insured and to debit the charges thereof in the loan account and a declaration finds mentioned in the loan document. The complainant is a well educated and a doctor by profession and cannot suppose to sign any document without going through the contents of the same.   It is stated further that the OP is a nationalised bank and works under rules.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OP has been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 affidavit, Ex.C-2 copy of legal notice, Ex.C-3 copy of postal receipt, Ex.C-4 copy of accounts statement (1-6 pages), Ex.C-5 affidavit, Ex.C-6 copy of statement and closed evidence.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP-1 affidavit, Ex.OP-2 copy of postal receipt, Ex.OP-3 reply of legal notice,  Ex.OP-4 copy of RINN Raksha form, Ex.OP-5 copy of premium and payment detail, Ex.OP-6 copy of additional declaration form, Ex.OP-7 copy of declaration form signed by the complainant, Ex.OP-8 copy of statement of accounts and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have very carefully perused the pleadings of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits acceptance, for these reasons.

 

6.             The case of the complainant is that he had availed a housing loan from the OP and the OP had debited her account for the payment of SBI Life Insurance without her consent and till date she had not received the policy document of the same.  It is further contended that the OP has not refunded the amount so charged by the OP despite his best efforts, as such has indulged into unfair trade practice.

 

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has contended that the amount of insurance has rightly been deducted under the authority of the complainant, which she signed at the time of availing the loan. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the OP that the complainant has filed the false complaint only to take undue benefit from the OP.

 

8.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the documents placed on record, we find that the complainant had availed the housing loan from the OP and the OP had deducted an amount of Rs.68,568/- from the account of the complainant for the issuance of the insurance policy without the prior consent of the complainant and till date the OP has not issued any such policy to the complainant.  Whereas the version of the OP is that the policy was issued to the complainant in order to safeguard the loan amount and consent of the complainant was duly obtained at the time of execution of the loan documents for the housing loan.  Further on carefully going through the document Ex.OP-4, we find that actually this document consists of four pages, but the Op has marked page number 2/4 as Ex.OP-5, page number 4/4 as Ex.OP-6 and page number 3/ 4 of the document as Ex.OP-7.  We find that the signature of the complainant are there on the document Ex.OP-6 and the OP has relied upon this document considering the same as debit authority of the complainant.  But, at serial number 8 and 9 of this document, we find that the same has been crossed, which shows that clauses have been deleted, so on the strength of this document, which is crossed as deleted, the version of the OP that the complainant had given the mandate to debit the account is not tenable.  Moreover, in the document Ex.OP-7, the place has been mentioned as Patiala, whereas the witness has signed at Sangrur. This document leads us to believe the version of the complainant that at the time of availing of the loan in question, the OP had obtained the signatures of the complainant at blank papers.  Moreover, the particulars mentioned such as height, age and birth also differs from the actual one, which suggests that the proposed form was not filled in at the instance of the complainant.

 

9.             Even though the complainant had signed the SBI Life Membership document, but then the complainant had not given any authority to debit the account of the issuance of the policy in question and neither the Op bank had produced any document to show that the account number 32821860262 was opened at the instance of the complainant in order to debit the same for the insurance premium.

 

10.            So, from the facts mentioned above, we are of the opinion that the OP bank is not only deficient in service, but has also indulged in unfair trade practice and has put the complainant to financial loss and accordingly, we allow the complaint and direct the OP to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.68,568/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint. We further direct the Op to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.15,000/- on account of compensation for mental tension and Rs.5000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

11.            This order of ours be complied with within a period of thirty days of its communication.  A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                April 16, 2015.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                              (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                Member

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                   Member