O R D E R

SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT.

            Complaint for a direction to close the outstanding amount compensation and costs.

            The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:

            The complainant is the son  of  Late  Mr. Shemsudheen, Proprietor  Nedumthara   stores  which was situated at Patharam Market and  he was  a member of Vyapari Vyavasai Samithi at Bharanikavu unit.  The said Shamusudheen died on 10.9.2006.   The opp.party has given  loan to the members of  the Vyapari Vyavasai Samithi      at the time of giving loan the opp.party had made the loanees  to believe that there will be insurance coverage to the loanee as well as the loan and in case of death of  a loanee  the entire remaining  outstanding loan amount   will be relinguished  believing the assurance.   The complainant’s father has also availed a loan from the opp.party at the time of giving the loan amount a sum of Rs.3,000/- was deducted from the loan amount by the opp.party as premium for the said insurance coverage  scheme.   The complainant’s father was regularly repaying the loan amount after his death the complainant has approached the opp.party requesting to closed the loan account in the name of diseased shamsudheen under the provisions of the Insurance  Scheme.  But the opp.party did not do so.  Hence the complaint.

            The opp.party filed a version contending interalia, that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.   The complainant here in this  case a stranger and there is between the complainant and the opp.party.   The complainant is not a consumer of  the  oppp.party.   This opp.party has not rendered any  service to the complainant.  Deceased   Shamsudeen the proprietor of Ned umthara Stores  has availed a cash credit  limit of Rs.2 lakhs from the opp.party on 18.4.2006 under the Traders Special Scheme.   The application was sponsored by Vyapari Vyvasayi Samithy,, Patharam  unit.   The loan was sanctioned on personal guarantee of one Riyas.M.A. and hypothecated of the stock of  stationery, fruits, milk etc. as primary security.   The loan was to be repaid 33monthly instalments.  At the time of sanction of the loan the opp.party had explained  to late Shamsudeen about the Life Insurance Scheme  of SBI as an additional benefit .  The scheme is purely an optional one and one who wishes to join the scheme as to submit an  application in the prescribed Form.  The premium for the scheme is different from scheme to scheme.  The diseased Shamsudheen had not submitted the prescribed application form  and so he is not eligible to get the  benefit under the LIC Scheme.   When an application  for the Life Insurance the opp.party  sends  the  same to the Insurance Company without any delay and the Insurance company will issue the policy directly  to the insured.  No application was submitted by the diseased Shamsudheen .  The allegation  in para 3 of the complaint that Rs.3,000/- was  deducted from the loan amount by the opp.party as premium for the Insurance Coverage Scheme is not true and  hencedenied.   Rs.3,000/- was paid by the diseased in the loan amount and same was credited in the  loan account of the loanee.  There is no deficiency of service  or unfair trade practice on the part of the opp.party.   The complainant is not cause of action against the opp.party.  Hence the opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.

Points that would arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the side of the opp.party.
2. Reliefs and costs.

For the complainant PW.1 and 2 are  examined   Ext. P1 to P4 are marked

For the opp.party DW.1 is examined .  Ext. D1 to D3 are marked.

Points:

            There is no dispute that the complainant’s father one Shamsudeen has availed a cash credit facility from the opp.party  Bank from 18.4.2006 under  Traders Special Scheme and that the said Shamsudeen died on 10.9.2006 .  The contention of the complainant is that his father Shamsudeen has also opted for Insurance Coverage for the loan amount under the above scheme under the above scheme  and the opp.party has deducted Rs.3,000/- towards premium for Insurance.  But after the death of the said Shamsudeen when the complainant applied for the benefit under the Insurance Scheme the opp.party did not take any action to write off the balance loan amount as provided under the Insurance Scheme.

            The definite contention of the opp.party’s is that the Insurance Scheme for the loan availed by the loanees under the Traders Special Scheme  is only optioned and that the complainant’s father deceased Shamsudeen did not opt for the Scheme and therefore he is not  entitled to get the benefits of the Insurance Scheme.

Exts. P2 statement of accounts produced by the complainant shows that a sum of Rs.3,000/- has been credited to the account of deceased Shamsudeen on 21.4.2006.  According to the  complainant this amount is credited towards the insurance premium whereas the contention of the opp.parties is that this amount was credited towards repayment of loan amount.  The loan was sanctioned on 18.4.2006 and the entire loan amount was completely withdrawn on 21.4.2006. Rs.3,000/- was credited to the account of Shamsudeen on 21.4.2006.  If this amount is credited towards the premium  for insurance there is no explanation as to why Rs.3000/- was deducted when the monthly premium towards insurance policy is Rs.1000/- only.   Ext.P2 shows that the entire loan amount of   Rs.2 lakhs has been withdrawn by the deceased Shamsudeen through 3 cheques.   The 1^st withdrawal was on 18.4.2006 as per cheque No.LL55874 for Rs.70,000/-  The 2^nd  withdrawal wwas on 21.4.2006 as per cheque No.LL55883 for Rs.50,000/-  .  On 21.4.2006 itself Rs.3000/- is shown as cash deposit and not as any deduction.

            PW.2 who was the surety of Shamsudeen for the loan  has stated that the opp.party has got the signature of Shamsudeen in the Insurance Form and deducted Rs.3000/- towards premium.  In  the next breath he would say that the monthly insurance premium is only  Rs.1000/-.  He would further state that for this purpose  he and Shamsudeen went together  and that the opp.party has told that the deduction of Rs.3000/- is towards insurance premium .  In cross examination he would say that though a sum of Rs.3000/-  was deducted  from his account also towards insurance premium  neither the statement of accounts nor the counterfoil of the receipt was given to him.  In further cross examination he would say that he had seen the deceased putting his signature in the insurance paper but did not see him filling in the application.  In further cross examination PW.2 would say that he received insurance  Policy after the death of Shamsudeen.  PW.2 has volunteered to produce the Insurance cover and produced the Renewal Premium Receipt which shown that the risk date of PW.2 is only from 2.11.2006 ie. after the death of Shamsudeen.  PW.2  has no case that the above date is not correct.  It goes without saying that the risk coverage is only from the date of remittance of premium.   If the risk date in respect of PW.2  is 2.11.2006, it clear that  he has remitted the premium only on that date and his statement that he and Shamsudeen went together for taking policy and remitted premium of Rs.3000/- immediately after availing loan cannot be true.

            The complainant has not produced any material to show that he he has filed application in the prescribed Form to the opp.party for joining the Life Insurance Scheme of SBI Life Insurance Company.  If deceased Shamsudeen has submitted any such application at the time of availing loan there is no reason as to why he has not enquired about the same when no policy was received everafter 4-5 months.  PW.1 has no case that he or his late father made any enquiry in this regard.   The statement of account in the name of deceased Shamsudeen also does not show any deduction of Rs.1000/- towards LIC premium during any other month.  If he was admitted to the scheme  monthly deduction would have been made  The contention of the opp.party  that Rs.3000/- shown in Ext.P2 is the repayment towards the 1^st instalment of the loan amount seems probable.  No material is also provided to show that for the above insurance if this payment is towards insurance premium if cannot be more than Rs.1000/-  initial premium  is Rs.3000/-.  from the available materials before us we hold that the complainant failed to prove that  his late father opted for the SBI Life Insurance Schemeand policy was allotted to him.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties.  Point found accordingly.

            In the result the complaint fails and the same is dismissed.   No costs.

            Dated this the   16^th      day of March, 2009.

                                                                                     .

I N D E X

List of witnesses for the complainant

PW.1. – Sidhique

PW.2. – Niyas

List of documents for the complainant

P1. – Notice sent lby opp.party

P2. – Statement of account

P3. – Reply notice of opp.party

P4. – Advocate notice with postal receipt

List of witnesses for the opp.party

DW.1. – Rema Devi

List of documents for the opp.party

D1. – Copy of reply notice

D2. – Statement of accounts