D.O.F:29/07/2019                                                                                                  D.O.O:11/07/2022

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD

CC.No.154/2019

Dated this, the 11^th day of July 2022

PRESENT:

SRI.KRISHNAN.K                         :PRESIDENT

SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER

SMT.BEENA.K.G                            : MEMBER

Manuel T Kappan

S/o Thomos Kappan

Kappan House, Chemmattamvayal.                    : Complainant

Balla (Post) Kuttikkal.

Kanhangad – 671531

(Adv: K. Abdul Nasir)

                                                                        And

The Manager

Bank of Baroda,

Kanhangad Branch                                                : Opposite Party

(Adv: K. Janardhanan)

SRI.KRISHNAN.K  :PRESIDENT

     The complaint filed under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act :-

     The case of the complainant in short is that he availed education loan to his son for Rs. 13,50,000/- from Opposite Party bank on 17/10/2015. Property in R.S No. 245/1 and 245/2 of Balla village is offered as security and personal guarantor also.  The Opposite Party bank promised to avail insurance coverage including the life of the borrower and clearance of the bank loan.  Further case is that on 01.01.2018 son died in a car accident on 12/02/2018 he went to the bank requested to close the loan by adjusting the insurance amount.  Opposite Party bank promised to discharge the liability.  Surprisingly he received a notice from Opposite Party bank (Vijaya Bank) that account became NPA and with a demand to pay Rs. 19,17345/- .  There was no notice from original Vijaya Bank or Opposite Party bank demanding the money till 03/06/2019.  Complainant sent reply to the notice explaining the position that they are not liable in view of the insurance coverage.  No insurance policy copy was issued to the complainant.  No request was made to insurance the properly.  Therefore there is deficiency in service negligence from Opposite Party.  Thus complainant is seeking the reliefs directing the Opposite Party to return the title deeds of the property of the complainant and guarantor, to close the loan amount, and to pay 5,00,000/- as compensation, cost of  litigation.

2.     The Opposite Party filed a written version denying the allegation in the complaint.  The Opposite Party admitted that complainant availed the education loan offering the property as collateral security besides his father as the guarantor.  The loan amount of Rs. 1917345/- is due till may 2019.  The Opposite Party sent legal notice U/S 13(2)  SARFAESI Act.  Any objection against SARFESI should have been filed before the DRT Eranakulam.  Insurance policy was taken covering fire, agricultural loss, lighting air craft damage, riot, strike, flood, etc with one time premium of Rs. 5506/-.  Thus policy is not covering the life of the borrower.  No benefit to the complainant and Opposite Party of the life of a person.  Amount of Rs. 5506/- is debited, insurance copy is made available.  Insurance coverage of borrower is not a condition of the contract.  United India Insurance company should be made a party.  Opposite Party bank admitted the death of complainants son but denied the liability to close the laon account with insurance coverage Opposite Party entitled to claim the money due.  No jurisdiction in view of SARFESI proceedings.  The Opposite Party submits to dismiss the complaint with cost.

    The complainant and Opposite Party filed chief affidavit and are cross examined.  Complainant filed Ext A1 and A2 document.  Ext A1 is copy of notice Ext A2 is the reply sent by the complainant to in the notice.   Opposite Party produced documents Ext B1 to B8.  Ext B1 insurance policy, Ext B2 statement of account, Ext A3 notice to borrower under section 13 (2) of ‘SARAFESI’ Act.  Ext B4 notice to guarantor , Reply notice to Opposite Party B5.  Ext B6 is notice to complainant.  Ext B7 is judgment by subcourt Hosdurg and Ext B8 is decree in OS 36/2019.

     Following points arise for consideration

a) Whether there is any deficiency in service from Opposite Party bank

b) Whether complainant is entitled for to closure of the loan account as prayed for.

c) Whether complainant is entitled for compensation? If so for what reliefs?

     The complainant admits the receipt of SARFAESI Notice issued by the Opposite Party bank.  He deposed that he does not know the details of the policy.  But he received the insurance policy from the bank but did not understand the contents.  Dw1 in his evidence deposed that they issue property insurance policy.  Complainant did not file any application or did not made any request for insurance claim , not applied for life insurance.  Dw1 in cross examination deposed that when there is life insurance coverage for those who availed loan in the case of normal death, no insurance is avialble.  No amount is paid as separate premium as admitted by Dw1.  The fact remains that complainant has no case that he applied for personal Insurance policy covering the educational loan amount nor paid the premium for policy nor complaint the non – receipt of the policy till date.  Complainant has no case that the insurance premium of Rs. 5506/- adjusted by the bank relates to the premium promised for personal insurance policy.   Complainant has no case that he verified the insurance policy received to him which did not contain any coverage for personal insure for borrowerof guarantor.  He has not raised any objection with the bank for non issue of personal insurance policy after collecting the premium.  Though there is an averment that Opposite Party issued demand notice and that it amounts to unlawful trade practice and deficiency in service.  Complainant has no specific case that there is deficiency in service or negligence in Opposite Party in not issuing personal insurance policy or thereby unlawful trade practice or as to why he is claiming the benefit of closure of education loan without paying the money due.  Complainant responded only after receipt of notice of demand.

     Even before filing complaint the Opposite Party bank has already initiated SARAFESI proceedings and complainant even sent a reply to the authorized officer dated 20/06/2019 and complaint is filed on 29/07/2019.  When parallel proceedings are pending, consumer complaint relating to same grievance is not entertainable.  So considering the overall facts, nature of the case, evidence adduced oral and documents, this CDRC holds that the complainant failed to prove the case by adducing necessary legal and acceptable evidence.

    Furthermore the decree and judgement Ext B1 and B2 shows that the suit for recovery of loan amount is already decreed by competent civil court and admittedly no appeal is filed nor pending.

     Hence, complaint is devoid of any merits and hence complaint is dismissed without any order as to costs.

     Sd/-                                                       Sd/-                                              Sd/-

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT

Exhibits

A1- Copy of the notice Dt:03/06/2019

A2- Reply sent by the complainant to in the notice Dt: 20/06/2019

B1- Copy of Insurance policy

B2- Statement of account

B3- Notice sent to the borrower Dt: 03/06/2019

B4- Notice to guarantor Dt: 03/06/2019

B5- Reply notice to OP Dt: 20/06/2019

B6- Notice to complainant Dt:27/06/2019

B7-  Judgment by sub court Kasaragod

B8- Decree in OS 36/2019

Witness Examined

Pw1- Mannual Thomas Kappan

Dw1- Naveen.K

      Sd/-                                                                Sd/-                                        Sd/-

MEMBER                                                      MEMBER                              PRESIDENT

Forwarded by Order

                                                                                    Assistant Registrar

Ps/