DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                                Complaint No.  621

                                                Instituted on:    22.11.2017

                                                Decided on:       17.05.2018

1.Harbans Singh son of Sh. Gurdev Singh, resident of Patti Dhaliwal, Village and Post Office, Chhajli, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

2.Jaswinder Singh son of Sh. Harbans Singh, resident of Patti Dhaliwal, Village and Post Office, Chhajli, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainants

                                Versus

1.             State Bank of India, Branch Chhajli, Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur earlier State Bank of Patiala, through its Branch Manager.

2.             SBI General Insurance Company Ltd. Natraj, 101, 201, & 301 Junction of Westrem Express Highway, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400069 through its authorised signatory.

                                                        ..Opposite parties.

For the complainant          :       Shri Rajan Kapil, Adv.

For Opp.party No.1          :       Shri Ashe Goyal, Adv.

For Opp.Party No.2          :       Shri Vinay Jindal, Adv.

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

                Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

1.             Shri Harbans Singh and Shri Jaswinder Singh, complainants (referred to as complainant in short) have preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that the complainants hired the services of OP number 1 by getting housing finance loan for Rs.15,00,000/- on 11.1.2012 for a period of 15 years with monthly instalments of Rs.17688/- per month and the complainant has been paying the instalments regularly to the OPs. The term of the above said loan was 11.1.2012 to 11.1.2027 and in the year 2015, the OP number 1 advised the complainants to get insured themselves, as there is a scheme of insurance with this housing finance term loan and further advised that there will be an expenditure of Rs.9244/- on the same.   It is further averred that since both the complainants were government employees, the OP number 1 deducted an amount of Rs.9244/- on account of insurance policy for the period from 25.11.2015 to 24.11.2030 without consent of the complainants.  Due to this act of the OP number 1, the complainants deposited  the balance amount with the OP number 1 in one go. Though the complainants requested the Ops for refund of the amount of Rs.9244/- charged as premium without their consent, but all in vain. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainants have prayed that the OPs be directed to refund to the complainants the insurance premium amount of Rs.9244/- and further claimed compensation and litigation expenses.

2.             In reply of the complaint filed by OP number 1, preliminary objections have been taken up on the grounds that the complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and that the complainants have concealed material and true facts, that the complaint is not maintainable and that the long term home insurance policy was got issued as per the terms and conditions of the loan document and no refund shall be allowed if there has been a claim under the policy.  On merits, it has been admitted that the complainant has availed house loan for an amount of Rs.15.00 Lacs from the OP number 1.  It is admitted further that OP number 1 had purchased an insurance policy from the OP number 2 in the name of the complainant and premium of Rs.9244/- was debited to the account of the complainant and the same has been done according to clause 7 of the arrangement letter-housing finance.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied in toto.

3.             In reply filed by OP number 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present case, that the complainants have concealed material facts from this Forum and it is stated that the policy has been issued on the basis of proposal form received at operations end.   On merits, it is denied that the copy of the policy was not supplied to the complainant. It has been stated that the policy was issued on the basis of the proposal form of the complainants.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

4.             The learned counsel for the complainants has produced Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-6 copies of documents and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP number 1 has produced Ex.OP-1/1 to Ex.OP1/9 copies of documents and affidavit and closed evidence. The learned counsel for OP number 2 has produced Ex.OP2/1 to Ex.OP2/8 copies of documents and affidavit  and closed evidence. 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence produced on the file and also heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits part  acceptance, for these reasons.

6.             It is an admitted fact between the parties that the complainants had got sanctioned a housing finance loan of Rs.15,00,000/- from OP number 1 on 11.1.2012, of which he has been paying the regular instalments for repayment of the loan amount.  It is also not in dispute that the OP number 1 took an insurance policy for the period from 25.11.2015 to 24.11.2030 by debiting the loan account of the complainant to the tune of Rs.9244/-.  Now, the grievance of the complainants is that the OP number 1 has took the policy in question without any consent of the complainants by using his security cheque and debited the amount of Rs.9244/- to the account of the complainants without any approval of the complainants.  Further case of the complainants is that due to this the complainants were forced to clear the loan amount in one instalment.  Now, the fact remains that the complainant has already got cleared the whole of the loan amount and the policy is valid for the period from 25.11.2015 to 24.11.2030, meaning thereby the OP number 2 has charged the premium for the period of 15 years i.e. for the period from 25.11.2015 to 24.11.2030, as such, we feel that ends of justice would be met, if the OP number 2 is asked to refund to the complainant proportionate premium after the date of clearance of the loan amount. It is worth mentioning here that none of the parties has mentioned the date of clearance of the loan amount of the complainant.

7.             Accordingly, in view of our above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct OP number 2 to refund to the complainants proportionate premium from the amount of Rs.9244/- after the date of clearance of the loan amount.   We further order the OPs number 1 and 2 to pay to the complainants an amount of Rs.2000/- in lieu of consolidated amount of compensation and litigation expenses.

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

                        Pronounced.

                        May 17, 2017.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                                President

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member

                                                        (Vinod Kumar Gulati)

                                                                     Member