Complaints filed on:27-07-2022

                                                      Disposed on: 28-08-2023

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

          DATED THIS THE DAY 28^th DAY OF AUGUST 2023

PRESENT

SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LL.B., MBA., MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITA RAVISH, B.A., L.L.B, LADY MEMBER

CC.No.114/2022

1.       Mrs. Mahalakshmi B.R.

          W/o Late Jayaramaiah,

          Aged about 37 years,

          Resident of Balehalli Village,

          Dodderi Hobli, Madhugiri Taluk.

2.       Manjanna S/o Honnappa,

          Aged about 40 years,

          Resident of No.407,

          11^th Main Road, 4^th Block,

          Nandini Layout, Bengaluru North,

          Bengaluru Urban.

……….Complainants

(By Sri. P.L.Shivarajkumar, Advocate)

V/s

The Branch Manager,

Karnataka Bank Ltd.,

B.H.Road Branch,

No.435/A, Shanthala Complex,

Tumkur.

……….Opposite Party

(Served-Absent)

:ORDER:

BY SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT

The complainants filed this complaint U/s 35 of the C.P. Act alleging deficiency in service against the OP with a prayer to direct the OP to recover the loan amount of Jayaramaiah from his Insurance policy and to issue the loan clearance certificate to the complainants and further prays to direct the OP not to transfer the amount from the 2^nd complainant’s account towards the loan amount of Jayaramaiah.

2.       The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

The husband of 1^st complainant and brother of 2^nd complainant namely Jayaramaiah S/o Sonnappa had availed a site loan from the OP Bank for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- on 28.01.2020 and the OP Bank fixed the EMI/installments at 269 months.  The 2^nd complainant was standing as a witness to the said loan.   It is further submitted that Jayaramaiah was working as an Assistant Engineer and EMI was deducted through his salary and during pendency of loan, Jayaramaiah was died on 05.05.2021 leaving behind the complainants.  After the death of Jayaramaiah, the OP without intimation or noticing, started recovering the amount from the account of the 2^nd complainant, but 2^nd complainant is not responsible to pay the loan amount as he is separated from the family of Jayaramaiah.  The complainants further submit that the OP has to recover the remaining loan amount from the Insurance of the loanee as the insurance was made at the time of advancing the loan, but harassing the complainants to clear the loan.  It shows the deficiency of service on the part of OP as well as unfair trade practice.  Hence, the complaint.

3.       After receipt of commission notice, Sri. M.A.A., Advocate filed vakalath on behalf of OP, but later got retirement form the case by filing retirement memo. 

4.       The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P4. 

5.       We have heard the arguments from complainant’s counsel.  In spite of sufficient opportunities given to the OP, the OP did not turn-up.

6.       On perusal of complaint, affidavit and documents produced by the complainant, the points that would arise for our consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP?

2. Whether complainant is entitled for reliefs sought for?

7.       Our findings to the aforesaid points are as under:

Point No.1: In the Negative

Point No.2: As per the final order.

:REASONS:

8.       Perused the documents and written arguments submitted by the complainant.  The Ex.C1 is the loan sanction letter dated:28.01.2020 for purchase of site and construction of house issued by the OP.  As per this exhibit, applicant is Jayaramaiah i.e. husband of 1^st complainant and joint applicants are 1^st and 2^nd complainant.  The loan was sanctioned under the scheme of KBL- APNAGHAR [KBL Y PRESS HOMELOAN].  In the loan sanction letter, it is specifically mentioned that, the insurance tenure in months was 60 and the loan amount covered under the scheme was Rs.15,00,000-00.  The post disbursement condition relating to insurance reads as follows:

“INSURANCE: Securities charged to the Bank should be fully insured with Bank clause against all necessary risks as required by the Bank insurance policies, cover notes, premium paid receipts etc. should be submitted to the Bank.  All expenses incurred to this regard by the Bank will be borne by the borrowers”. 

The Manager signed the said document on 23.06.2021.  Ex.C2 is the Death Certificate of Jayaramaiah, wherein date of death of Jayaramaiah was shown as 05.05.2021 and Ex.C3 is the Legal notice dated:24.08.2021 issued by the complainant.  The complainant produced only the above exhibits.

9.         To prove the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP, the premium paid receipts, insurance policy, account statement of the complainant’s husband and other applications are necessary documents.  But complainants not produced the said documents and complainants failed to disclose the details pertaining to insurance i.e. when the premium was paid, in whose name the insurance policy was obtained, date of policy, loan disbursement details like, date of disbursement, amount disbursed and other details.  In Ex.C4 it is noticed that the loan sanction date is-28.01.2020, but the loan sanction letter contains the signature of the Manager i.e. on 23.06.2021 and the death of complainant’s husband was on 05.05.2021. 

10.       Now the question is, whether the loan disbursed before the death of complainant’s husband or after the death?  The complainants are failed to substantiate their case by producing necessary documents.  Hence, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OP.  In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-

:ORDER:

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.  No cost.

Supply free copy of this order to both parties