Haryana

Sonipat

CC/357/2015

Smt. Karmo Devi W/o Ram Chander S/o Jogi Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of Patiala - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Chander

23 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

SONEPAT.

 

                Complaint No.357 of 2015

Instituted on: 22.09.2015                                                     

Date of order: 09.03.2016

 

Smt. Karmo Devi wife of late Sh. Ram Chander s/o late Sh. Jogi Ram, r/o H.No.1010/19, New Jeevan Nagar, Sonepat.

 

…Complainant.          Versus

1.State Bank of Patiala, 3 Model Town, near Mittal Nursing Home, Sonepat through its Manager.

2.SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., Subhash Chowk, above Ramesh Chicken, Atlas road, Sonepat through its Manager.

3.SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., SCO 127-128, Sector 17C Chandigarh through its Manager.

                                       …Respondents.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF

THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT,1986

 

Argued by: Sh. Satish Chander Adv. for complainant.

           Sh. PK Bhagat, Advocate for respondent no.1.

           Sh. SK Chawla, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3.

 

Before-    Nagender Singh-President.

          Prabha Wati-Member.

           D.V. Rathi-Member.

 

O R D E R

 

        Complainant has filed the present complaint against the respondents alleging therein that husband of the complainant Shri Ram Chander had applied for loan for the construction of residential house with respondent no.1, who had sanctioned a loan of Rs.5,27,700/- in favour of complainant’s husband. The respondent no.1 had paid a sum of Rs.480000/- out of loan amount of Rs.5,27,700/- and Rs.47700/- was deducted out of sanction loan as payment of SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd..  First premium was to be sent by the respondent no.1 to respondent no.2 and rest four installments were to be paid by respondent no.1 on demand of respondent no.2 for next four years.  The said loan was sanctioned on 19.9.2013.  The EMI of the said loan was Rs.6163/- and total tenure of loan was 168 months at the floating rate of interest o.00 below/above base rate and at the time of sanctioning of loan, it was 10.25%   At the time of sanctioning of the loan by respondent no.1, a separate form was submitted by the husband of the complainant for SBI Life Rinn Raksha Membership and the form number for the same was 7003259234.  A banker’s cheque/DD no.573408 dated 19.9.2013 was issued in the name of SBI Life Ins. Co. Ltd. for the amount ofRs.9531/- (out of Rs.47700/- deducted from sanctioned loan i.e. Rs.527700/-.  By this policy, the loan taken by the husband of the complainant got secured in the event of any mishappening with the borrower and the family of the borrower have not to repay the loan amount as the loan was duly covered with Rinn Raksha Policy and the loan amount was to be repaid by the respondent no.2 to the respondent no.1.   Unfortunately Ram Chander husband of the complainant haddied on 31.12.2014.  The respondent no.2 got insured the said Ram Chander husband of the complainant against policy no.7003259324 against the account of home loan i.e. 000000177143126  After the death of said Ram Chander, the complainant applied for insurance by moving the claim under the policy no.7003259234. The respondent no.2 in response to the claim filed by the complainant, sent a letter dated 11.2.2015 with the remarks that as per their record, they regret to inform that the said loan account was not covered under Rinn Raksha Policy.  Whereas the respondents were legally bound to pay the claim under the policy and reimbursed the loan account as per terms and conditions.  But the respondent no.2 has wrongly refused to give even a single penny to the complainant and that amounts to a grave deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.  So, the complainant has come to this Forum and has filed the present complaint.

2.       The respondents no.1,2 and 3 appeared and they filed their separate written statement.

         The respondent no.1 in its written statement has submitted that Ram Chander husband of the complainant was sanctioned a housing loan for Rs.527000/- for construction of the house and he was insured against policy no.7003259234 from respondent no.2 and respondent no.1 debited the insured amount of installments of Rinn Raksha Policy as per provisions from the loan sanctioned account of the deceased and was sent to the respondent no.1 vide DD no.573408 dated 19.9.2013 for Rs.9531/- favouring SBI Life Ins. Form no.7003259234 out of account no.00000065177143126 and the said draft was sent to respondent no.2 alongwith form no.7003259234 on 20.9.2013 through courier Akash Ganga vide receipt no.77450233 duly acknowledged by respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 is liable to make the payment of the insured amount to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint qua respondent no.1.

         The respondents no.2 and 3 in their joint written statement has submitted that Ram Chander had never proposed respondents no.2 and 3 for any insurance cover.  There is no contract existing between Ram Chander and SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Neither the proposal form nor the DD was received or encashed by the respondents no.2 and 3.  The respondents no.2 and 3 are totally unaware of such a transaction. The husband of the complainant was not covered under Rinn Raksha Insurance Scheme.  The onus is on the complainant to prove that the respondents no.2 and 3 had encashed the DD and had received or accepted the proposal form and the risk cover was granted to the deceased.  The claim documents were received, however the same were returned as Ram Chander was not covered under any insurance cover.  The respondents no.2 and 3 have no liability to pay any claim amount to the complainant as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.2 and 3 and thus, prayed for the dismissal of the present complaint.

3.       We have heard the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties at length.  All the documents have been perused very carefully and minutely.  

4.       Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that Ram Chander husband of the complainant was sanctioned a housing loan for Rs.527000/- for construction of the house and he was insured against policy no.7003259234 from respondent no.2 and respondent no.1 debited the insured amount of installments of Rinn Raksha Policy as per provisions from the loan sanctioned account of the deceased and was sent to the respondent no.1 vide DD no.573408 dated 19.9.2013 for Rs.9531/- favouring SBI Life Ins. Form no.7003259234 out of account no.00000065177143126 and the said draft was sent to respondent no.2 alongwith form no.7003259234 on 20.9.2013 through courier Akash Ganga vide receipt no.77450233 duly acknowledged by respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 is liable to make the payment of the insured amount to the complainant.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1.

         On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the respondents no.2 and 3 has submitted that Ram Chander had never proposed respondents no.2 and 3 for any insurance cover.  There is no contract existing between Ram Chander and SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. Neither the proposal form nor the DD was received or encashed by the respondents no.2 and 3.  The respondents no.2 and 3 are totally unaware of such a transaction. The husband of the complainant was not covered under Rinn Raksha Insurance Scheme.  The onus is on the complainant to prove that the respondents no.2 and 3 had encashed the DD and had received or accepted the proposal form and the risk cover was granted to the deceased.  The claim documents were received, however the same were returned as Ram Chander was not covered under any insurance cover.  The respondents no.2 and 3 have no liability to pay any claim amount to the complainant as there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents no.2 and 3.

5.       After hearing ld. Counsel for both the parties at length and after going through the entire relevant records available on the case file very carefully, we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent no.1 who has deducted Rs.47,700/- out of sanctioned loan as payment of SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. (Rinn Raksha).  Banker/s cheqaue/DD no.573408 dated 19.9.2013 was issued in the name of SBI Life Ins. Co. Ltd. (form no.7003259234) for the amount of Rs.9531/- (out of Rs.47700/- deducted from sanctioning loan).  The husband of the complainant Shri Ram Chander had died on 31.12.2014.  In our view, the sole responsibility of the respondent no.1 was to insure the loan account no.00000065177143126 with respondent no.2 as the husband of the complainant had already paid the installments in advance for Rinn Raksha policy to the respondent no.1. As per document Annexure C4, the loan amount was covered upto the amount of Rs.4,80,000/- by the SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.  An amount of Rs.9531/- regarding first installment was deducted from the account of the complainant’s husband on 19.9.2013 under SBI Life Rinn Raksha policy and respondent no.1 has issued a banker’s cheque in favour of SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.  As per record, the loan was sanctioned on 19.9.2013 and complainant’s husband Shri Ram Chander had died on 31.12.2014.  In this way, one more installment was to be paid by State Bank of Patiala/respondent no.1 to SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd. on the due date i.e. 19.9.2014.  So, the respondent no.1 is hereby directed to refund the amount of Rs.27638/- (Rs.47700 – 19062=27632/-) to the complainant within a period of one month from the date of passing of this order, otherwise, the refunded amount shall fetch interest at the rate of 09% per annum from the date of passing of this order till its realization.

         Further as per statement of account Annexure C-5, the complainant’s husband paid regular installment upto 20.12.2014 and outstanding amount towards the complainant’s husband as on 31.12.2014 was Rs.4,60,227/- and as per Rinn Raksha policy, an amount of Rs.4,80,000/- was covered by the respondent no.1 bank from the respondent no.2 SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd.   In our view, it was the prime duty of the respondent no.1 to ensure the issuance of Rinn Raksha policy in favour of the complainant’s husband and why it was not got issued by the respondent no.1, the best reasons are known to the respondent no.1 particularly when the amount has been deducted from the account of the complainant’s husband.   Thus, we hereby direct the respondent no.1 not to recover any amount of loan from the complainant. The respondent no.1 is also directed to compensate the complainant to the tune of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.twenty thousand) for rendering deficient services, harassment and under the head of litigation expenses.

         Certified copy of this order he provided to both the parties free of cost.

         File be consigned after due compliance.

 

 

(Prabha Wati) (DV Rathi)            (Nagender Singh)           

Member,DCDRF, Member, DCDRF           President, DCDRF

Sonepat.      Sonepat.                Sonepat.

 

Announced 09.03.2016