Haryana

Karnal

CC/559/2020

Babli - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company - Opp.Party(s)

Radhey Shyam Sharma

13 Jul 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

                                                        Complaint No. 559 of 2020

                                                        Date of instt.04.12.2020

                                                        Date of Decision:13.07.2023

 

Babli, age 37 years widow of Shri Surender Singh, resident of house no.315, Gali no.3, Mangal Colony, near Shani Mandir, Karnal. Aadhar card no.9031-8882-8711.

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, 3^rd floor, Minerva Complex, Amabla Cantt.-133001.       

 

2.     The   Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, Bajaj Allianz House, Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune-411006.

 

3.     The Manager, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company, Sector-12, Urban Estate, Karnal.

 

4.     Union Bank of India, G.T. Road, Karnal through its Branch Manager.                                    

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary….Member

          

 Argued by: Shri Radhey Shyam, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Atul Mittal, counsel for the OPs no.1 to 3.

                    None for OP no.4.

 

                    (Jaswant Singh, president)

ORDER:   

                

                  The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that the husband of complainant namely late Shri Surinder Singh was serving in the Police Department on the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, Karnal. The husband of complainant took a loan from LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and some amount was outstanding against the husband of complainant. OP no.4 suggested the husband of complainant to take the loan from them on cheaper rate of interest and further suggested to deposit the balance amount of LIC housing. OP no.4 also assured that the borrower of the loan would also be insured to the extent of loan amount. The husband of complainant trusted the version of OP no.4 and became ready to take the housing loan from OP no.4. The husband of complainant in order to take the loan completed all the formalities as per the direction of OP no.4 and after completion of the formalities, the OP no.4 sanctioned housing loan of Rs.19,90,000/- in the first week of June, 2020. On 11.06.2020, OP no.4 issued a cheque no.253427 dated 11.06.2020 of Rs.18,06,100/- in favour of LIC Housing Finance Ltd. and retained the balance amount of sanctioned loan on the plea that the life of husband of complainant would be insured to the extent of loan amount and installment of premium would be paid by OP no.4 to the OPs no.1 to 3. The husband of complainant took the loan from OP no.4 for construction of residential house and said loan was to be returned from 14^th August, 2020 to 13^th August, 2038 in equal installments and the life of husband of complainant was covered to the extent of loan amount, till the payment of entire loan amount. OP no.4 debited a sum of Rs.10,089/- on 14.08.2020 in the account of husband of complainant and transferred the said amount in the account of OPs no.1 to 3 towards the life insurance premium. The husband of complainant having a bank account no.379902050000615 in his name with OP no.4 and Sahil son of Surinder Singh was made nominee in the abovesaid bank account. Unfortunately, the husband of complainant died on 19.10.2020, leaving behind the complainant and his son Sahil and daughter Alisha. After the death of her husband, complainant was not having any source of income. The OPs no.1 to 3 insured the husband of complainant to the extent of loan amount with an understanding that in case any mis-happening took place with the husband of complainant, the balance amount of loan would be unliquidated and the OPs no.1 to 3 would pay the balance loan amount to OP no.4. After the death of her husband, complainant intimated the OPs no.1 to 3 and submitted all the requisite documents and requested the OPs to unliquidate the loan amount. It is further averred that in order to secure the loan amount, OP no.4 took into possession the original sale deed of the property of husband of complainant only to secure the loan amount and other relevant documents and said documents are still lying with the OP no.4.  Prior to the death, husband of complainant approached the OPs so many times and requested to issue the policy to the extent of loan amount but OPs did not issue the policy in question. Complainant visited the office of OPs several times and requested to issue a certificate regarding waiving off the balance loan amount and also to return the original documents, which were deposited by the husband of complainant at the time of sanctioning of the loan. But OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. On 25.11.2020, complainant approached the OPs and requested to issue a certificate regarding waiving off the balance loan amount and also to return the original documents, but officials of the OP no.4 have threatened the complainant that unless and until the entire loan amount is not paid, the original papers cannot be returned. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence this complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs no.1 to 3 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; jurisdiction; mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties; cause of action; locus standi; limitation and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that as per record of the OPs no claims was lodged as alleged by the complainant under the policy in question. Had the complainant lodged any claim, a claim number would have been allotted and the claim would have been registered. Hence, it is to submit that for want of immediate intimation and registration of claim no claim is payable under the policy in question. The complainant has not given any opportunity to the OPs to verify the claim. It is further pleaded that as per complainant they are saying that they have a loan protector policy but as per policy shared by the complainant the same is Standard Fire and Special Perils which only come into picture in case of damage of property. No policy issued against the loan protector and the said policy which is issued to the insured, that policy only coverage of property. So, the complainant is not entitled to any relief. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP no.4 appeared and filed its separate written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that OP never approached the husband of complainant to taking loan from him nor assured him that he would be insured to the extent of loan amount, rather the fact is that the husband of complainant applied for grant following loans with the OP no.4 and same were accordingly sanctioned and disbursed to him as per process laid down by the bank:-

a)     Mortgage loan of Rs.4,90,000/- on dated 12.06.2020 vide account no.379904120000002.

b)     Personal Loan of Rs.5,00,000/- on dated 12.06.2020, vide account no.379906590179474.

c)     Housing Loan of Rs.17,60,000/- on dated 05.06.2020, vide account no.379906650163218.

It is worthwhile to mention here that the present complainant is the guarantor of her husband for the repayment of the said loan amount and the interest accrued thereon and she has signed the guarantee deeds and other documents in favour of the OP no.4. It is denied that housing loan was sanctioned of Rs.19,90,000/- in favour of husband of complainant and it is denied that OP no.4 issued cheque no.253427 dated 11.06.2020 of Rs.18,06,100/- in favour of LIC Housing Finance, rather the fact is that the house loan of Rs.17,60,000/- was sanctioned in favour of husband of the complainant and same was disbursed to him as per his asking. It is denied that Rs.4.00 lakh were kept balance of sanctioned amount with the plea that the life of husband of complainant would be insured to the extent of loan amount and installment of premium would be paid by the OP no.4 to the OPs no.1 to 3. The husband of complainant purchased General Insurance Policies regarding the house and goods therein from the OPS no.1 to 3 and paid the premium of same from his saving account. The house loan is to be repaid in 225 equal monthly installments of Rs.13860/- from July, 2020. It is further pleaded that an amount of Rs.5,31,438/- is due in mortgage loan, Rs.5,18,588/- is due regarding housing loan account are outstanding and in order to grab that amount the complainant has filed this false and baseless complaint by cooking up a false story. After the death of her husband, complainant being legal heir and guarantor of her husband is liable to repay the entire outstanding amount alongwith interest and penal interest. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of death certificate Ex.C1, copy of identity card Ex.C2, copy of ration card Ex.C3, copy of statement of loan account Ex.C4, copy of statement of account from 04.06.2020 to 06.11.2020 Ex.C5, copy of application by complainant to Civil Lines, Karnal Ex.C6, copy of insured detail Ex.C7, copy of transcript of proposal Ex.C8, postal receipts Ex.C9 and Ex.C10 and closed the evidence on 11.03.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs no.1 to 3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Saurav Khullar, Legal Manager Ex.OW1/A, copy of proposal of policy Ex.O1, copy of policy schedule Ex.O2 and closed the evidence on 01.09.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for the OP no.4 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Rishab, Senior Manager Ex.OP4/A, copy of statement of account of personal loan Ex.OP1, copy of statement of account of housing loan Ex.OP2, copy of statement of account of mortgage loan Ex.OP3 and closed the evidence on 03.10.2022 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and opposite parties no.1 to 3 and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

9.             Learned counsel for the complainant, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that insured Surinder Singh (since deceased) took a loan of Rs.19,90,000/-. The said loan was to be returned from 14^th August, 2020 to 13^th August, 2038 and the life of insured was covered to the extent of loan amount, till the payment of entire loan amount for that, OP no.4 debited a sum of Rs.10,089/- on 14.08.2020 in the account of insured and transferred the said amount in the account of OPs no.1 to 3 towards the life insurance premium. The loanee died on 19.10.2020. As per terms and conditions of loan agreement, the balance amount of loan would be unliquidated and the OPs no.1 to 3 would pay the balance loan amount to OP no.4. After the death of loanee, complainant intimated the OPs no.1 to 3 and submitted all the requisite documents and requested the OPs to unliquidate the loan amount but OPs no.1 to 3 did not pay the loan amount. Complainant visited the office of OP no.4 several times and requested to issue a certificate regarding waiving off the balance loan amount and also to return the original documents, but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

10.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OPs no.1 to 3 while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that as per record of the OPs no claims was lodged as alleged by the complainant under the policy in question. Hence, without submitting the claim no claim is payable under the policy in question and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

11.           As per version of OP no.4, husband of complainant has taken three loans from OP no.4. The housing loan was sanctioned of Rs.19,90,000/- in favour of husband of complainant and it is denied that OP no.4 issued a cheque of Rs.18,06,100/-, rather the fact is that the house loan of Rs.17,60,000/- was sanctioned in favour of husband of the complainant and same was disbursed to him. The husband of complainant purchased General Insurance Policies regarding the house and goods therein from the OPs no.1 to 3 and paid the premium of same from his saving account. An amount of Rs.5,31,438/- is due in mortgage loan. After the death of her husband, complainant being legal heir and guarantor of her husband is liable to repay the entire outstanding amount alongwith interest and penal interest but complainant failed to deposit the same and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint qua OP no.4.

12.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

13.           OPs have alleged that no claim has been lodged by the complainant and the present complaint is premature.

13.           Before going to the merits of the case, firstly we decide, whether the present complaint is pre-mature or not?

14.           The onus to prove for submitting the claim with the OPs was relied upon the complainant but complainant has miserably failed to prove her version by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. To prove her version, complainant has relied upon the application Ex.C6 dated 12.11.2020, which was moved by her to Police Station, Civil Lines, Karnal against the Bank Manager, Union Bank of India and Housing Loan Incharge, Branch Union Bank of India, Ambedkar Chowk, Karnal i.e. OP no..4. Merely moving the application before the Police against the OP no.4 does not mean that complainant had lodged the claim with the OPs i.e. insurance company. Furthermore, if the complainant had submitted the claim with the OPs and supplied the required documents, they would have placed the copies of said documents on the file. Furthermore, complainant has also failed to disclose date and month for submission of the claim form with the OPs. Thus, we are of the considered view that complainant has not submitted the claim with the OPs.  Hence, in view of the above, the present complaint is premature and not maintainable.

15.           In view of the above observation, the present complaint is disposed off with the liberty to the complainant to submit the claim form alongwith documents as required by the OPs and on receipt of the same, OPs no.1 to 3 are hereby directed to decide the claim of the complainant within 30 days. No order as to costs. This order shall be complied with accordingly. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:13.07.2023                                                                  

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)

  Member                   Member