1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that she is the mother of deceased loanee, Anwin Vergese Rajan who during his life time had availed loan from OP vide loan A/c. No.27697983 for purchase of a Pickup Van and the loanee died on 05.12.2014.  It is submitted that the loan has been insured and the policy document is with the OP bank but in spite of death intimation, the OP is not taking any step to cover the loan dues by settling the insurance claim.  It is further submitted that the complainant is paying the loan dues but without taking any step to adjust the loan dues against insurance claim, the OP threatens to repossess the vehicle.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank, she has filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to close the loan account and to pay Rs.1.00 lac towards compensation to the complainant.

2.                     The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant and contended that the son of the complainant had taken a loan of Rs.3, 74,000/- vide loan Agreement No.27697983 to be paid in 47 EMIs @ Rs.10, 570/- starting from 05.05.2014 to 05.03.2018 and due to nonpayment of EMIs the OP has initiated arbitration case No.274/16 before the ld. Arbitrator, Sri B. B. Mishra which is pending.  It is submitted that the ownership lies with the financier till the last EMI is paid and the OP has every right to repossess the vehicle and sell it to secure its outstanding dues against the borrower.  The OP submitted that as on 01.8.2015 an amount of Rs.1, 11,819/- is due in the loan account and the complainant falsely alleges that her son had transferred any premium amount to cover the loan under insurance.  It is also further contended that the OP had given no advice regarding any insurance to the son of the complainant but in order to avoid the payment of loan, the present complainant has adopted concocted thoughts.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Both the parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The OP has only filed affidavit.  Heard from the A/R for the complainant and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, it is an admitted fact that Anwin Vergese Rajan, the son of the complainant during his life time had availed loan from OP vides Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement No.27697983 for purchase of a vehicle inter alia agreeing to pay the loan in 47 EMIs @ Rs.10, 570/- starting from 05.05.2014 to 05.03.2018 and it is the case of the complainant that her son had transferred required premium amount to the Insurance Co. to cover the loan amount. It is her further case that the insurance document is with the OP and in spite of repeated approach the bank is not interested to settle the claim along with the Insurance Co. to waive out remaining loan dues.

5.                     The OP stated that it does not know about insurance against the said loan account, as no such information or policy number has been shared with the bank neither by the complainant nor by her son during taking the loan and as per terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant is liable to pay the loan dues.

6.                     It is seen that the complainant has neither mentioned any insurance details in her complaint petition nor furnished any document to that effect in this case.  It is seen that the OP after filing counter did not appear for hearing and hence the Forum as per petition dt.02.8.2017 of the complainant directed the OP to file the loan documents executed by the parties in order to know about insurance cover to the said loan but the OP did not prefer to file the documents. However, from the available documents filed by the OP, we could not find any insurance cover to the loan amount of the complainant.  The complainant has not furnished the name of Insurance Co. from which he availed the insurance.  The OP also denied about any insurance taken by the son of the complainant while taking the loan.  In absence of any insurance document, we have no scope to come to a conclusion that the loan taken from the OP was under the umbrella of insurance for future safety and security.  Therefore, both the parties are bound by the agreement and as such we are not inclined to interfere with the agreement executed by the parties.  Hence we do not find any merit in this case which needs dismissal.

7.                     In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant have no merit.  Parties are to bear their own costs.

(to dict.)