Complaint filed on: 21-01-2020

                                                      Disposed on: 23-06-2021

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU

CC.No.03/2020

DATED THIS THE 23^rd DAY OF JUNE, 2021

PRESENT

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, B.Com, L.L.M, PRESIDENT

SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc., L.L.B, MEMBER

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

Complainant: -

                                        Vishal Gupta,

                                                S/o Vinod Shankar Gupta,

                                                Aged about 44 years,

                                                Prop: FILCOMPS,

                                                No.51-52, 2^nd Phase,

                                                Antharasanahalli Industrial

Area, Tumakuru

(By M.S.V.Law Associates Advocates)

V/s

Opposite parties:-    

1. The General Manager,

Kotak Mahindra General Insurance Company Limited, 1^st Floor, Subhashri Pride, No.41, South End Road, Basavanagudi,

Bengaluru-560 004

2. Branch Manager,

Kotak Mahindra Bank, Tumakuru branch,

Tumakuru

(OP No.1-By Sri.N.V.Naveen Kumar, Advocate)

(OP No.2 –By Sri.R.P.Rajeshwar, Advocate)

       ORDER

SRI.C.V.MARGOOR, PRESIDENT

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties (hereinafter called as OPs) to return back the balance amount of Rs.10,683-00 along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 02-11-2018, Rs.50,000-00 towards mental shock, pain etc. suffered by the complainant and cost of the proceedings a sum of Rs.10,000-00.  

2. It is the case of complainant that he had availed a loan of Rs.21.00 lakhs from the 2^nd OP Kotak Mahindra Bank, Tumakuru Branch, Tumakuru for construction of house on his site No.10, 5^th cross, 1^st block, Kuvempunagara, Tumakuru. The loan was sanctioned and agreement was executed between the parties on 31-10-2018 agreeing to repay the loan amount in 120 EMI a sum of Rs.27,232-00 per month. It is further case of complainant that without his consent or willingness to obtain the Kotak Home Secure- Prime policy the OPs have deducted Rs.1,28,000-00 as policy premium in the loan amount of Rs.21.00 lakhs. The policy period is 10 years commencing from 30-10-2018 to 29-10-2028. Immediately after noticing deduction, the complainant had given complaint on 25-3-2019 to the 1^st OP who issued policy stating that the insurance policy has been issued without consent. The 1^st OP on 10-4-2019 has credited a sum of Rs.1,17,317-00 to the account of complainant. Still the 1^st OP is due a sum of Rs.10,683-00. The 1^st OP has failed to return back the due amount of Rs.10,683-00 despite issue of legal notice hence, this complaint for deficiency of service and negligence on the part of OPs.

3. The OP No.1 and 2 in response to the notice appeared through their learned counsel. The 1^st OP contention is that the complainant after understanding the information given by the 2^nd OP at the time of sanction of loan he agreed to take Kotak Home Secure-Prime policy as such the 2^nd OP has deducted the premium of Rs.1,28,000-00. The 1^st OP admitted that they issued Kotak Home Secure-Prime policy to the complainant and issued welcome letter to the complainant to inform his willingness to continue the policy or not within 15 days from the date of receipt of policy and welcome letter. The complainant kept mum for more than four months and thereafter sent a letter stating that without his consent the policy has been issued. The 2^nd OP has filed similar written version stating that in the loan sanctioned letter it is well informed to the complainant that he has to secure the loan property by obtaining property insurance as additional security at all times. The property insurance policy and its premium is well within the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant after admitting the proposal of the policy has signed the documents. There is no deficiency in service and negligence on the part of the OPs and asked to dismiss the complaint.

4. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 documents. On behalf of the 1^st OP one Milind Myakal, Vice President, Legal department has filed affidavit evidence and produced five documents. On behalf of the 2^nd OP one Sri.Siddalingaswamy.K.P, Legal Manager and authorized signatory, Tumakuru branch has filed affidavit evidence and produced loan sanctioned letter and copy of statement of account.

          5. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and OP No.1 and 2 and the points that would arise for determination are as under:

1)      Whether the complainant proves that non return of Rs.10,683-00 by the OPs amounts to deficiency in service?

2)      Is complainant entitled to the reliefs sought for?  

6. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1: In the negative

Point No.2: In the negative  

REASONS

          7. Point No.1 to 2: The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently argued that the OPs without consent and knowledge of the complainant have deducted Rs.1,28,000-00 for Kotak Home Secure – Prime policy. The OPs have taken signature on the documents of complainant by keeping date and place as blank. As against this the learned counsel for the OPs have vehemently argued that the 2^nd OP is bank which sanctioned a loan of Rs.21,00,000-00 on 31-10-2018 and the complainant after knowing the terms and conditions mentioned in the loan sanctioned letter has signed the documents.

          8. The complainant is not an illiterate person. The averments of para no.2 of the complaint is sufficient to believe that the complainant is well read person. The para no.2 of the complaint reads as “the complainant is the proprietor of the FILCOMS industries situated at No.51-52, 2^nd Phase, Antharasanahalli Industrial area, Tumkur dealing with manufactures of rubber components and supplies to various factories at different places.”   That apart the complainant has signed in English on the complaint and loan documents.  

9. It is admitted by the complainant that the 2^nd OP has sanctioned a loan of Rs.21,00,000-00 on 31-10-2018. The complainant has sent grievance letter (complaint) to the 1^st OP on 25-3-2019 stating that the insurance policy has issued without consent. The complainant has kept mum nearly five months after receiving the welcome letter and Kotak Home Secure-Prime insurance policy. The complainant produced Ex.P1 intimation dated 31-10-2018 issued by the 1^st OP with regard to risk assumption for Kotak Home Secure – Prime policy No.1043267300. It is stated in the letter addressed to the complainant that we request you to carefully go through the same once again and in case of any disagreement, discrepancy or clarifications, please call us on our toll free number 18002664545 or write to us at . The 1^st OP produced document for dispatching the policy document to the complainant. The 1^st OP has dispatched Kotak Home Secure – Prime policy on 01-11-2018 and it was delivered to the complainant on 10-11-2018. If the complainant had not given consent to Kotak Home Secure – Prime policy he would have informed to the 1^st OP or 2^nd OP or given complaint within 15 days from the date of receipt of Ex.P1 welcome letter or policy document since the 1^st OP had given option to the complainant. Ex-P2 statement of loan account produced by the complainant indicates that on 31-10-2018 Rs.21,00,000-00 was credited to the complainant’s account. The complainant has withdrew Rs.19,72,000-00 on 02-11-2018 and Rs.1,28,000-00 has  been adjusted on 09-11-2018. It was within the knowledge of complainant with regard to debit of Rs.1,28,000-00 to his account on 09-11-2018. The complainant has not taken any action or intimated to the OPs for deducting Rs.1,28,000-00 from his loan account on 09-11-2018. The complainant kept mum for five months and thereafter he complained on 25-3-2019 stating that the insurance policy issued without consent.

10. It is already stated that the complainant being an educated person and industrialist as such he is well versed with the banking transactions. The 1^st OP produced Kotak Home Secure-Prime policy proposal form and on the front page of document date seal is put as 30-10-2018. It is mentioned in the proposal form that the period of policy is from 30-10-2018 to 29-10-2028. The complainant has signed on the last page of document at two places and opposite to his signature on the left side it is mentioned in front of place as Bengaluru. Therefore, there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the complainant that place and date has been kept blank in the proposal form.

11. The complainant has not disputed receipt of welcome letter and Kotak Home Secure – Prime policy document on 10-11-2018. If the OPs have taken signature without the consent of complainant, he would have immediately intimated to the 1^st OP that without his consent the policy has been issued and a sum of Rs.1,28,000-00 is deducted from the his account on 09-11-2018. The complainant being an educated person even after receipt of policy document and welcome letter and knowing debit entry in his account kept mum since he has agreed to obtain Kotak Home Secure- Prime policy. Thus the complainant has failed to prove that without his consent the 1^st OP has issued Kotak Home Secure- Prime policy for a period of 10 years and deducted a sum of Rs.1,28,000-00 as premium.

          12. The 1^st OP immediately after receipt of complaint on 25-3-2019 has refunded Rs.1,17,317-00 to the complainant on 10-4-2019 by cancelling the policy issued in his favour. Further as per the policy terms and conditions deducted Rs.10,683-00 towards pro rata refund of the cancelled policy. The complainant has not disputed receipt of Rs.1,17,317-00 from the 1^st OP on 10-4-2019. It is contention of the 1^st OP that the complainant has obtained the policy a sum of Rs.1.00 crore for 10 years towards standard fire and special perils-structure, Rs.40,36,714-00 for five years towards standard fire and special perils-contents, Rs.40,46,714-00 towards burglary and theft and Rs.10,00,000-00 towards additional rent for alternate accommodation for 12 months.

13. The learned counsel for the 1^st OP argued that the policy was in force from the date of issue i.e. on 30-10-2018 to 10-04-2019 and covered risk for said period. At the time of cancellation the OPs have rightly deducted the amount of Rs.10,683-00 as per the policy wordings. If anything happened during this period the OPs were liable to compensate the complainant. The 1^st OP produced the Kotak Home Secure –Prime policy wordings and clause No.15 of the policy wordings deals with the cancellation. The policy may be cancelled by or on behalf of company by giving the insured at least 15 days written notice and in such event the company shall refund to the insured a pro rata premium for the unexpired policy period. For the avoidance of doubt, the company shall remain liable for any claim that was made prior to the date upon which the insurance was cancelled. If the policy is cancelled the company will refund premium on a short period basis by reference to the time cover is provided, subject to a minimum retention of premium amount shown in the table.

14. The OPs have deducted Rs.10,683-00 as per the terms and conditions of the policy. The policy was in force from 30-10-2018 to 10-04-2019 and during that period risk was covered. The OPs have deducted Rs.10,683-00 in terms of policy condition as such there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of OPs. At the cost of repetition we say that the complainant being an educated person and industrialist and after knowing the terms and conditions of the loan has agreed to obtain the Kotak Home Secure – Prime policy. In addition to that the complainant had kept quite even after receipt of welcome letter in the first week of Nov.2018 and did not choose to cancel the policy even after receipt of the policy document on 10-11-2018. The complainant came to know deduction Rs.1,28,000-00 towards premium on 09-11-2018 but he has not complained to the OPs to believe that the policy was issued without his consent. For the above reasons, the complaint deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following;

ORDER

The complaint is dismissed without cost.

Furnish the copy of order to the complainant and opposite parties at free of cost.

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 23^rd day of June, 2021).

LADY MEMBER            MEMBER                       PRESIDENT