DATE OF FILING : 1.6.2015
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 27th day of April, 2017
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO.184/2015
Between
Complainant : V.V. Raju S/o Velayudhan,
Plamparambil @ Varvila House,
Nedumkandam P.O, Idukki.
(By Advs: Shaju Manel
& Rijo Laly Jose)
And
Opposite Parties : 1. The Branch Manager,
Idukki District Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Nedumkandam Branch,
Nedumkandam, Idukki.
2. The General Manager,
Idukki District Co-operative Bank Ltd.,
Head Office, Vazhathoppe,
Idukki Colony P.O., Idukki.
(Both by Adv: Georgy George)
3. The Joint Registrar,
Kerala Sahakarana Vikasana
Kshemanidhi Board,
Thiruvananthapuram -1.
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Complainant’s wife had availed a loan of Rs.5,75,000/- from the opposite party bank as per IHL-100, Account No.7422, on 16.12.2011, for which complainant was the guarantor. They had availed the insurance from the bank by paying Rs.4,200/-. Opposite party had made believe that, as per the insurance scheme, if loanee expires / affected by any fatal disease, the loan will be closed. Complainant’s wife had taken the insurance as per the risk fund scheme of 3rd opposite party. The wife of complainant expired on 1.12.2013 and all documents regarding the same were given to opposite parties for getting the benefit from the government. Complainant requested opposite parties to close the said loan from the insurance benefit. But opposite parties were not (cont.....2)
- 2 -
ready and instead they had forced the complainant to remit the loan upto 5.5.2015 under the threat of recovery proceedings. It is a severe deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties to charge undue amount even after the death of his wife and also issued a risk fund policy worth Rs.250/-, after receiving Rs.4200/- from the complainant. Complainant is eligible for the risk fund benefit. Opposite party is liable to return Rs.1,70,000/- which the opposite parties charged after 1.12.2013. Complainant is also entitled to compensation for the mental and financial hardships suffered due to the act of the opposite parties. Opposite party is liable to close the loan account of his wife with the risk fund benefit.
First and 2nd opposite parties jointly filed written version and admitted the loan taken by the wife of the complainant. But denied the allegation of the complainant that they had taken insurance by paying Rs.4200/-. As per the loan order (SO No.HL-2010/2011) the loan amount is to be disbursed in four installments depending on the work progress of the building. Final amount is given at the completion of the work and building insurance amount is charged from the beneficiary. It is not true that insurance premium of Rs.4200/- was charged at the time of availing the loan. Insurance is given as a safe cover against the damages to the buildings and not for the fatal disease or death of the loanee. The request of the complainant to close the loan from the insurance amount, which is not in force is illegal and unsustainable. In this case, the Government has sanctioned risk fund of Rs.1 lakh which is credited in the loanee’s loan account. Surety is liable to remit the balance amount. The outstanding amount in the said loan account on 1.12.2013 was Rs.5,37,276/-. The amount remitted after the death of the loanee, that is Rs.1,70,000/- is due to the bank. Complainant is liable to pay the balance amount of Rs.3,73,889/-.
Additional 3rd opposite party is impleaded, but never turned up or not filed any written version and made exparte.
The point for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
Oral and documentary evidence adduced by the complainant and Exts.P1 to P4 marked. No oral evidence adduced by opposite party and Exts.R1 and R2 marked on their side. (cont.....3)
- 3 -
The POINT :- Complainant examined as PW1. Complainant’s wife had availed a housing loan of Rs.5,75,000/- from the opposite parties. Unfortunately his wife expired on 1.12.2013. Complainant alleges that at the time of availing the loan, his wife had taken the insurance policy under the risk fund scheme of 3rd opposite party by paying Rs.4200/-. Complainant alleges that after the death of his wife, the opposite parties are not ready to close the loan as per the insurance scheme. Loan passbook of the wife of the complainant is marked as Ext.P1. Ext.P2 is copy of heirship certificate. Ext.P3 is copy of death certificate. Ext.P4(series) is copy of legal notice with postal receipt and AD Card.
Complainant alleges that he is entitled to get the said loan closed, by using the insurance benefit, under the risk fund scheme. But opposite parties unlawfully charged Rs.1,70,000/- after the death of his wife which opposite parties are bound to refund.
In the written version, 1st and 2nd opposite parties admitted the loan, but denied the allegations of complainant. Opposite parties contend that the same was a housing loan, for which insurance coverage was for the respective building in case of any damages due to natural calamities, fire etc. But no personal insurance coverage for death / fatal diseases of the loanee was offered and opposite party denied the allegations that Rs.4200/- was charged as insurance premium. Copy of the housing loan sanction letter is marked as Ext.R1. Ext.R2 is statement of loan account. Since there is no individual insurance claim, the said loan cannot be closed from the insurance benefit. opposite party contended that they had arranged for the risk fund benefit and the said amount of Rs.1 lakh is credited in the said loan account. Opposite party is entitled to charge the loan arrears and the outstanding amount, even after the death of the loanee. The balance loan amount in the said loan is legally entitled to the opposite parties.
We have heard the counsels for both the parties and gone through the records. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that the complainant is failed to produce any evidence to substantiate that whether the opposite party bank received an amount of Rs.4,200/- towards insurance premium, as alleged in the complaint. At the same time, they are
(cont.....4)
- 4 -
admitting the fact that on their request, 3rd opposite party sanctioned an amount of Rs.1 lakh from the risk fund, due to the death of the loanee and it accounted in the loan account. The learned counsel further submitted that clause No.8 of Ext.R2 loan sanction letter establishes their version that the insurance coverage is only on the newly constructed house from natural calamities, not for the personal damages of the borrower. At this juncture, it is very pertinent to note that the question arises in this matter is whether the deceased borrower is entitled to get the benefit of risk fund and who is responsible for that ? The counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 specifically stated that they approached the 3rd opposite party and as per their request, 3rd opposite party sanctioned an amount of Rs.1 lakh, but no evidence is produced before the Forum that whether the risk cover is limited and under what provision. Also it is to be noted that 3rd opposite party is the authority to sanction the risk fund and 3rd opposite party is answerable to the above questions. In this case, eventhough the process of this Forum was accepted by the 3rd opposite party, they not turned up to convince the Forum that what is their role in this issue. It is the bounden duty of the 3rd opposite party to present before the Forum and clarify the issues raised by the complainant and 1st and 2nd opposite parties. Hence 3rd opposite party is miserably failed to adduce any evidence or at least to file a contention. From the above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that the opposite parties 1 and 2 acted as per the banking laws and rules and they approached the 3rd opposite party for sanctioning the risk fund and no deficiency in service is found out against them. At the same time, the Forum firmly believes that the actual person behind the curtain is 3rd opposite party, who is the authority to sanction the risk fund and who is answerable why they not sanctioned the full amount to close the pending dues in the loan account of the deceased borrower.
For the reasons stated herein above, we, the Forum finds that the act of the 3rd opposite party in this matter amounts to deficiency in service and the Forum directs the 3rd opposite party to sanction the amount to cover the pending loan dues of the deceased and exonerate the complainant from further payment of loan amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to not initiate any steps against the complainant for recovery of the loan amount. The complainant is not produced any evidence to convince the Forum that he happened to remitted an
(cont.....5)
- 5 -
amount of Rs.1,70,000/- after the death of his wife due to the coercion or threat from the part of opposite party. Hence without having sufficient evidence, it is unlawful to direct the opposite parties to return the said amount to the complainant as alleged.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of April, 2017
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR, PRESIDENT
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K., MEMBER
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
PW1 - V.V. Raju.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - Passbook.
Ext.P2 - Copy of Legal heirship certificate.
Ext.P3 - Copy of death certificate.
Ext.P4(series) - Copy of legal notice and postal receipt and AD card.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Ext.R1 - Copy of the housing loan sanction letter.
Ext.R2 - Statement of account.
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
