Haryana

Karnal

CC/658/2021

Smt. Veena Devi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

Satish Kumar Dhabra

30 Nov 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No. 658 of 2021

                                                        Date of instt.29.11.2021

                                                        Date of Decision: 30.11.2023

 

Smt.Veena Devi wife of late Shri Chander Bhan, resident of Village Uchana, District Karnal, age 51 years (Aadhar Card No.9045 3494 4673).

 

                                               …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.     The Manager, State Bank of India, NDRI, Branch, Karnal.

2.     Manager, SBI General Insurance Company Limited, Ist Floor, BD International SCO No.388-389, Karan Commercial Complex, Old Char Chaman, Karnal. 

…..Opposite Parties.

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.       

      Sh. Vineet Kaushik…….Member

      Dr. Suman Singh……….Member

          

 

Argued by: Shri Satish Kumar, counsel for the complainant.

                    Shri Pardeep Gupta, counsel for the OP no.1

                    Shri Naveen Khetarpal, counsel for OP No.2.

 

                    (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 the complainant had taken a personal loan of Rs.11,25,000/- vide loan A/c No.39749858663 which was to be repaid in 48 monthly installments to the OP No.1. The said loan was insured from the OP No.2 vide policy No.19402507, which was taken on the advise of OP No.1. At the time of policy, the OPs told that in case of death of borrower, the entire loan amount will be paid by the insurance company. The husband of the complainant paid regular installments but unfortunately he has died on 04.05.2021 and information in this regard was given to OPs. After the death of Shri Chander Bhan, complainant approached OPs to pay the benefit against the said policy and also issue NDC as the said loan was insured collaterally and as per the version of the OPs, insurance company will pay the entire remaining loan amount but OP No.1 started postponing the matter on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, complainant approached to OP No.1 to issue NDC but OP No.1 started postponing the matter on one pretext or the other and then refused to issue the NDC and also refused to pay the benefit as per said policy. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 13.11.2021 to the OPs but OPs did not pay any heed to the genuine request of the complainant. 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 appeared and filed their separate written version. OP No.1 in its written version has raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus standi; estoppal; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that it is wrong and denied that the OP had told that in case death of borrower, the entire loan amount will be paid by the insurance company. The OP never advised or suggested the husband of complainant to get the loan insured from the OP No.1. Infact, the husband of the complainant had taken the policy on his own and the OP has no role to play in it. The husband of the complainant was a government employee and after the death of her husband, the complainant gave in writing to the OP that whatever amount would be credited in the account by the government towards the death benefit of her husband the OP may deduct the same/EMI from the said account towards the repayment of the loan. The OP is not aware that the insurance company had undertaken to repay the loan amount of the husband of the complainant after his death. Since, the entire loan amount alongwith interest thereon has not been paid by the complainant, so far and therefore, the NDC cannot be issued by the OP and in case, the complainant or the insurance company pays the entire loan amount alongwith interest to the OP, the OP shall issue the NDC. 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.2 in its written version has raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; pre-mature, jurisdiction, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that the present complaint is pre-mature as till date the complainant has not intimated the answering respondent regarding death of Chander Bhan and has not lodged any claim with the OP. The claim form and other documents which has to be duly filled by the complainant is still pending. Due to non-intimation of loss, no investigation has been conducted by the company. The personal loan policy was issued in favour of deceased for insured sum of Rs.7 lacs. However, the terms and conditions of the policy were explained to the complainant at the time of proposing policy and same was served to the husband of the complainant alongwith policy schedule. Moreover, it is clearly stated in the policy schedule “the insurance under this policy is subject to the conditions, clauses, warranties, exclusions etc, attached.” Policy is contractual in nature and the claims arising therein are subject to the terms and conditions forming part of the policy. The complainant has accepted the policy agreeing and being fully aware of such terms and conditions and executed the proposal form. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and present petition deserves dismissal on this score alone. 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 policy Ex.C2 and copy of statement of account Ex.C3, and closed the evidence on 05.05.2022 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.1 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Ruchi Chanchan, Branch Manager, SBI, NDRI, Branch, Karnal, Ex.RW1/A, copy of statement of account Ex.ORW01 and closed the evidence on 10.08.2022 by suffering separate statement.

7.             Learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Jitendra Dhabhai Chief Manager, Legal authorized signatory SBI General Insurance Co. as RW2/A, copy of terms and conditions Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on 10.08.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             We have heard the learned counsel for the parties 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 complaint, has vehemently argued that husband of the complainant had taken a loan of Rs.11,25,000/-. The said loan was to be returned in 48 monthly installments and the life of insured was covered to the extent of loan amount, till the payment of entire loan amount for that, OP no.2 debited a premium amount from the account of insured. The loanee (husband of complainant) died on 04.05.2021. As per terms and conditions of loan agreement, the balance amount of loan would be unliquidated and the OP no.2 would pay the balance loan amount to OP no.1. After the death of loanee, complainant intimated the OPs and submitted all the requisite documents and requested the OPs to unliquidate the loan amount but OPs did not pay the loan amount. Complainant visited the office of OP no.1 several times and requested to issue NDC, 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 OP no.1 while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that husband of complainant has taken a loan of Rs.11,25,000/-. After the death of her husband, complainant being legal heir 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.

11.           Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.2 while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that as per record of the OP, 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 as the present complaint is pre-mature and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

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

13.           OP No.2 being insured has alleged that no claim has been lodged by the complainant and thus, the present complaint is premature.

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

15.           The onus to prove for submitting the claim with the OP No.2 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 only the copy of death certificate Ex.C1, copy of policy form Ex.C2 and statement of account Ex.C3, except these documents, there is nothing on the file to prove that the complainant has submitted the claim with the insurance company. Furthermore, if the complainant had submitted the claim with the OP No.2 and supplied the required documents, they would have placed the copies of said documents on the file. Moreover, the complainant has also failed to disclose date and month for submission of the claim form with the OP No.2. Thus, we are of the considered view that complainant has not submitted the claim with the OP No.2.  Hence, in view of the above, the present complaint is premature and not maintainable at this stage.

16.           In view of the above observation, the present complaint is disposed of with the liberty to the complainant to submit the claim form alongwith documents as required by the OP No.2 and on receipt of the same, OP No.2 is hereby directed to settle the claim of the complainant within 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order, as per the terms and conditions of the policy. 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: 30.11.2023   

                                                                President,

                                                    District Consumer Disputes

                                                    Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

 (Vineet Kaushik)       (Dr. Suman Singh)

  Member                   Member