Date of Filing: 01-03-2016 Date of Final Order: 13-04-2017
Smt. Runa Ganguly, Member.
The case of the Complainant in brief is that the deceased son of the Complainant (here in after DLA) during his life time took house building loan of Rs. 8,09,000/-from the Opposite party bank and the said loan duly insured with the SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. i.e. the O.P. No.1. The DLA used to pay EMI without any intervals. Unfortunately, the son of the Complainant who worked at Singapore died due to an accident on 10.12.2014. Due to sudden death of her husband the Complainant along with her only daughter were spending life with great hardship. In this situation, one bank employee came to her residence and pressured to clear off the due loan amount of Rs. 2,45,290/- immediately otherwise the bank would confiscate her house. The Complainant rushed to the O.P. No.2 narrated the fact in details also brought the notice of the Branch Manager and other officer of loan section that the said loan was duly insured with the SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. but they did not pay any heed towards it. They also denied to show the loan file of the DLA rather forced her to deposit the claimed amount. Thereafter, the Complainant finding no other alternative collected money from market with high rate of interest and paid the bank to maintain her social prestige on 31.12.2014. After payment of dues loan the Complainant asked the bank officials for returning the security deposit (Paper of landed property) then after opening the file was noticed that there was an existence of insurance paper. Thereafter, the bank officials assured her that within a short period they processed the claim. As per requirement of the bank the Complainant deposited all relevant documents on 06.07.2015 and on 09.02.2016 but no fruitful result came out. Being frustrated and suffering from mental pain and agonies due to misbehave and non co-operation of bank officials the Complainant filed the present case before this Forum seeking redress and reliefs as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
In the present case the Opposite Parties appeared before this Forum through Ld. Agents separately and contested the case. The O.P. No. 1 in its turn by filing W/V admitted that the house building loan of the Complainant was duly insured and covered under the State Bank of India Home Loan Insurance Policy vide Master Policy No. 83001000203 that was issued in favour of the State Bank of India. This answering O.P. also averred that after receiving death claim intimation from the nominee of the DLA on 19.01.2016 they processed the claim and settled the claim for the sum assured of Rs. 2,43,401/- as per banker’s statement also issued a cheque No.243401 dated 31.03.2016. Thus, this O.P. acted as per terms and condition of the policy and has no deficiency in service from their part. If any dispute arose between the Complainant and SBI, this O.P. had no liability in any way as the O.P. No. 1 and the SBI were the two separate legal entities. The further contention of this O.P. is that Complainant did not suffer any trouble because of the negligence of this O.P. Putting all this, the O.P No. 1 prayed for dismissal of this case with cost as the O.P had no negligence or deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant.
The O.P. No. 2 by filing W/V contested the case contending inter-alia that the Complainant has filed this case for illegal gain. This O.P. always ready to hand over the cheque which was sent by the O.P. No. 1 but the Complainant denied to receive the said cheque. This O.P. denied the allegations leveled against them and averred that the Complainant only entitled to get the said cheque amount without any cost or compensation.
In the light of the contention of the both parties, the following moot points are necessarily come up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, perused evidence on affidavit, written argument of the O.P also heard the argument by the parties at a length.
Point No.1.
Evidently and admittedly, the deceased son of the Complainant during his life time took loan from the Opposite Party No. 2 and the said loan was insured with the O.P. No. 1. The Complainant paid one time premium for insurance his loan. The Complainant being the nominee of the said policy has filed the present case. Thus, the relation between the Complainant and the O.Ps, so established from the record we are convinced to hold that the Complainant is a ‘Consumer’ of the O.P as per provision of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
The office of both the O.Ps are situated within this district. The Complainant filed this case for Rs.3, 65,290/-. Thus, this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
Point No.3 & 4.
Both points are taken up together for convenience and brevity.
It is the case of the Complainant that the deceased son of the Complainant Bidhan Kumar Bhowmik during his life time insured his house building loan of Rs. 8,09,000/- with the SBI life Insurance Company Ltd. He took the loan on 04.06.2008 from the State Bank of India at the rate of 10% interest with EMI Rs.11,500/- for a term of 108 months. After the sad demise of her son the Complainant bound to deposit a huge amount to the O.P. No. 2 as outstanding dues of the House Building Loan as the O.P. No. 2 created pressure on her. The O.P. No. 2 also overlooked the matter of insurance as obtained by her son during his life time. Surprisingly, after payment of total dues the O.P. No. 2 find the Policy in the Loan File of the DLA. Thereafter, being the nominee the Complainant preferred claim to the O.P. No. 1. During the pendency of this case the O.P. No. 2 wanted to deliver the cheque that is nothing but a negligent act of the O.P. No. 2. Due to deficiency in service of both O.Ps the Complainant faced a lot of troubles, metal pain and agonies. Thus the present case arisen out.
It is the case of the O.P. No.1 that this OP has a Group Insurance Scheme, for the borrowers of Home Loan from State Bank of India. Late Bidhan Kumar Bhowmick, the DLA applied for the said insurance and was covered under the State Bank of India Policy No.93001000203 with date of commencement of insurance cover as 4.6.2008 for his loan A/c.No.30397308757. After receiving the claim intimation from the Complainant the O.P. No 1 daly processed the claim and as per bankers certificate the outstanding loan of DLA as on the date of death was Rs. 2,43,401/- and issued cheque vide No. 243401 dated 31.3.2016. This answering O.P. speeding resolve the claim of the Complainant for which no deficiency in service is proved, the Complainant only for harassing, made this O.P. as a necessary party for which this complaint liable to be dismiss against this O.P.
It is the case of the O.P. No.2 that the O.P SBI always ready to hand over the cheque as issued by the O.P. No.1, SBI life Insurance Company Ltd. but the Complainant did not take the cheque. The allegation made by the Complainant in complaint petition is totally false. They only made some enquiry as per their procedure for which they have no deficiency in service. The Complainant is entitled to get back the cheque amount without any compensation and other relief.
Evidently, the Son of the Complainant during his life time took a house building loan from the OP NO.2 on 4.6.2008 of Rs.8,09,000/-bearing loan A/C 30397308757 at the rate of 10% interest for a term of 108 months with EMI of Rs.11,500/-.
It also appears from the documents made available in record that the said loan was duly insured with the O.P. No.1, valid from 4.6.2008 for loan Account No. 30397308757.
The Son of the Complainant expired on 16.12.2014 when the policy was in motion. The Complainant in her complain petition and by swearing an affidavit stated that one bank officer, loan section created pressure for depositing the outstanding dues of Rs.2,45,920/- immediately. The Complainant stated them about the Insurance policy but they did not pay and heed. It appears from the loan statement Account that the Complainant paid Rs.2,45,290/- on 31.12.2014 i.e. within a very short period from the date of demise of her Son.
It is pertinent point to mentions that the SBI is a nationalized bank and deals with a large no. of customers. The bank officials must be diligent in their manner. It is unfortunate enough that even after existing of the policy relating the House Building Loan of the DLA, the Complainant compelled to pay the same to maintain her social prestige and to safe guard her house. It is unpardonable, that even after existing the SBI Life policy in connection with the H.B. Loan the O.P. No.2 did not hear the Complainant and the Complainant bound to make payment of Rs.2,45,920/-. It is nothing but sheer negligence and deficiency in service of the O.P. No.2.
The O.P. No. 1 received the claim on 19.01.2016 and settled the matter on 04.04.2016. with Rs.2,43,401 as per banker statement. During the course of argument the Ld. Agent for O.P. No. 1 vehemently argued that there is no direct nexus between the O.P. No. 1 and the Complainant. They issued policy in favour of the SBI and SBI sanctioned loan to the Complainant. As and when the O.P. SBI referred the claim the O.P. No. 1 settled the same without any delay. Besides, there is no denial of the O.P. No. 1 that they received Rs. 2,45,920/- as outstanding dues from the Complainant after demisal of her son i.e. the DLA. The O.P. No. 2 very cleverly kept mum in this respect. As there is no denial then it is admitted.
Be that as it may, in the light of the discussion made herein before, it is crystal clear that the O.P. No. 2 did not follow up the alleged insurance policy in connection with the HB Loan obtained by the deceased son of the Complainant even after getting information. Moreover, the Bank realized the outstanding dues of loan inspite of existence of insurance policy. It is nothing but a gross negligence and deficiency in service from the side of the O.P. bank. The O.P. No.1 took plea that the bank is ready to hand over the cheque to the Complainant but considering the fact this plea cannot be tenable in our view. The O.P. bank ought to have started processing for getting death claim but it did not take any step and kept mum for a long period. The Complainant suffered a lot for inaction of the O.P. bank. Thus, deficiency in service cannot be ruled out against the O.P. bank.
The SBI Life, i.e. O.P. NO. 1 after receiving the claim with necessary documents settled the claim and issued cheque without delay. Thus, in our considered opinion O.P. No. 1 has no deficiency in service.
As it is clearly proved that O.P. No. 2 has deficiency in service, the Complainant is entitled to get relief with compensation from the O.P. No.2.
Hence,
it is Ordered,
The present Case No. CC/15/2016 be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P. No.2 with cost of Rs.5,000/- and dismissed against O.P. No.1.
The O.P. No.2 is directed to make payment of Rs.2,45,920/- as received from the Complainant along with interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of deposit the said amount. The Complainant also do get an award of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service of the O.P. No.2. The entire order shall be comply by the O.P. No.2 within 45 days i/d Rs.50/- shall be levied for each day’s delay and the amount so accumulated will be deposited in the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let plain copy of this Final Order be made available and be supplied free of cost to the concerned party/Ld. Advocate by hand/Registered Post with A/D forthwith for information and necessary action, as per Rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
