BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.94 of 2018
New CC No.385 of 2023
(Remanded Back) 05.09.2023
Date of Inst. 25.09.2023
Date of Decision: 26.09.2024
Deepak Kumar Verma S/o Late Devi Ditta, R/o 31, New Ujala Nagar, Jalandhar.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. The Branch Manager, HDB Financial Services Ltd. 188-A, Second Floor, Above Kaya Skin Care Centre, Near Model Town Gurudwara Sahib, Jalandhar.
2. The Chairman, HDB Financial Services Ltd., Radhika, 2nd Floor, Law Garden Road, Navrangpura, Ahemdabad, Gujarat-380009.
3. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited, Through its Branch Manager, 1st Floor and 2nd Floor, Gupta Chamber, Opposite Kalika Mandir, Civil Lines, Jalandhar (Punjab)-144001
Also at 362/363, Fourth Floor, Shakti Mall, Lajpat Nagar, Opp. Gymkhana Club, Jalandhar.
4. HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, Through its Branch Manager, 3rd Floor, Eminent Mall, 261, Lajpat Nagar, Near Guru Nanak Mission Chowk, Jalandhar, Punjab-144001
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member) Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Complainant in Person.
Sh. Gurcharan Singh, Adv. Counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2.
Sh. A. K. Gandhi, Adv. Counsel for the OP No.3.
OP No.4 Given Up.
Order
Dr.Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been remanded back by the Hon’ble State Commission, vide order dated 05.09.2023, whereby the order of this Commission dated 04.03.2022 had been set-aside and further, a direction was given to this Commission to decide the same afresh by considering the contents of the complaints, all the pleas taken by the OPs in their respective replied, evidence available on the record as well as the oral/written arguments to be advanced/submitted by the counsel for the parties and the parties will be at liberty to produce additional documents/evidence required for reaching to a just decision, if any.
2. Brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant Sh. Devi Ditta raised a loan against the property from the OP No.1 on 19.02.2016, to the tune of Rs.18,41,260/- against a loan amount for Rs.19,00,000/- and the complainant was the guarantor in the above said loan, whereas the OP No.2 is the controlling office. That Sh. Devi Ditta and the complainant executed various security documents in favour of the OPs and the monthly installments payable is Rs.30,654/- per month w.e.f. 04.03.2016 and accordingly, Sh. Devi Ditta, the father of the complainant paid the monthly installments regularly upto November, 2017. That as per the RBI guidelines, the OPs got insurance of Sh. Devi Ditta at the time of disbursement of the said loan to cover the risk of the bank loan in case of the death of the borrower till the adjustment of the said loan and debited Rs.28,326/- to the loan account of Sh. Devi Ditta being the lump-sum insurance premium which was paid by the bank to the HDFC Slic Credit Protect Plus Scheme, but the OP No.1 has neither provided the copy of insurance cover note containing the terms and conditions nor given the detailed address of the HDFC LIFE CP PLUS SUPPLIER in the letter dated 14.10.2017 as such the complainant is unable to array the insurance company as the OP. That as per the terms and conditions of the loan agreement Sh. Devi Ditta paid the monthly loan installments regularly, but Unfortunately, Sh. Devi Ditta died on 25.12.2017 and the said information was conveyed to the OPs through the complainant. That after the death of Sh. Devi Ditta, the complainant visited the office of the OP No.1 for completing the various formalities to lodge the insurance claim with the insurance company so that the account be got adjusted, but the OPs are not paying any heed to the genuine request of the complainant in completing the formalities for the claim of the outstanding loan amount as the complainant is unable to pay the monthly installments. The OPs inspite of oral requests made by the complainant failed to complete the formalities for lodging the claim with the insurance company, the reasons best known to the OPs. Ultimately, the complainant was compelled to serve a legal notice dated 23.01.2018, but the OPs failed to file the reply. That the OPs No.1 & 2 have obtained the insurance cover from OP No.3 in order to cover the risk of repayment of the loan in the event of the death of the borrower Sh. Devi Ditta and the OPs No.1 & 2 being the Master Policy Holder of the insurance paid the insurance premium to the said insurance company after debiting the amount from the loan account. The insurance cover was provided to OPs No.1 & 2 by OP No.3, vide policy No.PP000054. Therefore, the OP No.3 is liable to release the insured sum to OPs No.1 & 2 or in the alternative in favour of complainant. That due to the above said facts, there is deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to claim the insurance from the insurance company, the amount outstanding in the loan as per RBI norms and OP No.3 be directed to pay and release the insured sum in favour of OPs No.1 & 2 for adjustment of loan amount or in the alternative in favour of the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through its counsel and filed its joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not legally maintainable. The complainant has no pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint. That complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. The complaint is bad for jon-joinder and mis-joinder for necessary parties. That the complainant cannot be permitted in law and equity to avoid and evade the consequences of his own breach by resorting to the present complaint. The true facts are that Sh. Devi Ditta alongwith complainant and Kanta Rani availed loan from the answering OP vide loan agreement no.1328775 and the loan was got secured from HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company Limited. The insurance policy schedule-cum certificate of insurance vide master policy number PP000054 was handed over to Sh. Devi Ditta by the OP, after the issuance of same by the HDFC ERGO Gen. Insu. Co. Ltd. Moreover, it is also evident from the welcome letter issued to the complainant wherein it is specifically mentioned the name of the insurance company i.e. HDFC and this fact was within the knowledge of the complainant as he has duly received the welcome letter. The complainant averments regarding the insurance claim is not a valid excuse for the default and the complainant is obliged to make payment as per the terms of the agreement. At present a sum of Rs.19,15,197.50/- is still payable as per foreclosure statement dated 30.04.2018 against the said loan account which the answering OP is entitled to recover from the complainant. The complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint against the answering OP in order to avoid and evade the loan liability pending against the complainant. There is no deficiency in service, negligence and unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OPs. It is further averred that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed as the loan agreement contains an Arbitration Clause where under all disputes and differences arising out of touching or concerning the said agreement or in any way relating to or arising there from are to be referred to arbitration and the Hon’ble Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. On merits, the factum in regard to raising a loan by Sh. Devi Ditta and the complainant is admitted, but the other allegations as made in the complaint by the complainant are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.
4. OP No.3 filed its separate written reply and contested the complainant by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is false, vexatious and has been filed with a malafide intention to harass the OP No.3 by misusing the process of law and to avail undue advantages. It is further averred that the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP and the same is liable to be dismissed as no Claim has got registered by the complainant or intimate by the OPs No.1 and 2 with the answering OP No.3 pertaining to the alleged death claim of Devi Ditta. So, the payment of the claim in question does not arise. Moreover due to non registration of the alleged claim in question with the answering OP, the answering OP No.3 got no opportunity to verify the genuineness of the claim, so the question of deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3 does not arise. So, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the complainant has not come before the Commission with clean hands and suppressed the material facts from the Commission. So, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score. That the complainant is estopped by his own acts and conduct from filing the present complaint. So, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint is false and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. The Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint. So, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of territorial jurisdiction. On merits, the factum in regard to taking insurance policy by the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that the terms and conditions of the policy were sent to the father of the complainant, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
5. OP No.4 also filed its separate written reply and contested the complainant by taking preliminary objections that the complainant has not attached the relevant annexures alongwith the copy of the complaint thereby depriving this OP from extracting relevant details from its record. Complainant has relied on a premium computation sheet which does not convey the details of the policy under which the complainant is claiming. The complainant has not filed even a single document alongwith with complaint, from which the details of the policy, under which the complainant is claiming his father to be insured, could be ascertained. On merits, all the allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
6. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
7. We have heard the arguments from learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file very minutely.
8. It is proved that the father of the complainant Shri Devi Dita, the proprietor M/s D. K. raised loan against the property from the OP No.1 on 19.02.2016. It is admitted that a sum of Rs.28,326/- was deducted as HDFC (Standard Life Insurance Company) Slic Credit Protect Plus and Rs.6255/- was paid as premium. It is admitted and proved that Rs.18,41,260/- was paid to the complainant. The complainant has alleged that the insurance cover was never provided to the complainant nor the terms and conditions of the insurance were ever brought to the notice of the complainant. The complainant has proved that Devi Ditta has died on 25.12.2017. Death certificate has been proved as Ex.C-1. The insurance policy has been proved as Ex.C-2. The coverage detail has been proved as Ex.C-6. The complainant has alleged that after the death of Devi Ditta, the father of the complainant, visited the office of OP No.1 to lodge the claim, but his request was never considered. The insurance cover was obtained by the OPs No.1 and 2 from OP No.3 and all the OPs had full knowledge about the death of the father of the complainant. The insured amount is liable to be given to the complainant so that the loan amount be adjusted from the claim amount.
9. On the other hand, the counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 submitted that the present complaint is not maintainable as the arbitration award has already been passed against the complainant. The award has been challenged by the complainant in Civil Court, therefore, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction, but this contention is not tenable as there is an additional remedy as per Section-100 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019, which says that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other law in force and as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Imperia Structures Ltd. Vs. Anil Patni & Anr., (2020) 10 SCC 783 decided on 02.11.2020 in which it is held that remedies under the Consumer Protection Act were in addition to the remedies available under special Statute, the finding of the State Commission that in view of the matter pending before the Civil Court and the availability of remedies under arbitration, the Consumer Complaint did not lie before the State Commission, cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, the arbitration award has no relevance with the present complaint as the arbitration award has been passed for recovery of loan amount, whereas the present complaint is regarding the claim of insurance, therefore, the passing of the arbitration award has no effect on the maintainability of the complaint filed by the complainant.
10. Another submission of the Ld.Counsel for the OPs No.1 and 2 is that the terms and conditions were handed over to the complainant alongwith policy cover when the same was received from the OP No.3. Welcome letter was also issued. The death of the father of the complainant was never reported to the OPs No.1 and 2. The claim was never lodged by the complainant. It is the fault of the complainant and there is no deficiency in service.
11. Similarly, OP No.3 has submitted that no claim was ever registered or lodged with the OP No.3, therefore, the present complaint is pre-mature. Unless and until the claim is not lodged, no disbursement of any loan is possible, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. As per Ex.C-6/OP1/2/3, the insurance policy is member certificate of insurance by HDFC Standard Life Insurance Company. As per terms and conditions No.7, under the heading Procedure for registering the claim: after the death of the insured. The following should be undertaken within 30 days to register a claim on this membership: (i) Contact the master policy holder who will provide HDFC Standard Life’s required claim forms. (ii) Submit the completed claim forms and any accompanying documentation to the master policy holder who will pass all the details to HDFC Standard Life. In the present case, the OP No.1 is the master policy holder. It is admitted and proved that no claim was ever lodged, therefore, the present complaint is pre-mature. In such circumstances the complainant is directed to get the claim form from master policy holder for further submission of the same to the OP No.3 by lodging the claim of insurance as per rules, if he so desires within 15 days. After receipt of the claim form, the OP No.3, who is the insurance company, shall decide it, as per rules, within reasonable time. Accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is disposed off. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
12. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
26.09.2024 Member Member President
