DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.56/2007

Mohammed Ali.S

S/o.Santhu Mohammed,

Srambi House,

Mettuvalavu,

Tattamangalam, Palakkad – 678012 - Complainant

Vs

1. The Manager,

Dewan Housing Finance Limited,

Ambika Arcade, M.G.Road,

Trichur, Kerala.

(By Adv.P.M.Ramesan)

2. The Manager,

Dewan Housing Finance Limited,

2^nd Floor, Safa Complex,

Near KSRTC, Palakkad. - Opposite parties

O R D E R

By Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

The wife of the complainant availed a housing loan of Rs.1,23,000/- from the opposite parties and the same was numbered as 122, 1604 and LC No.370. At the time of taking the loan it was told by the opposite parties officials that the aforesaid housing loan covers insurance and in the event of death of the applicant there is no need to pay the monthly repayments. Unfortunately the complainant's wife expired on 7^th August, 2006 due to kidney failure. The complainant issued death certificate of his wife to the opposite parties officials at Bombay, Trichur and Palakkad offices. But the opposite parties forced the complainant to make the repayments and he was remitting the same every month without fail till on March 2007. Thereafter the complainant contacted the opposite parties' officials to get the details of his wife's insurance papers. There was no response. The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. The complainant has suffered mental agony, pain and suffering due to the act of opposite parties. So the complainant is claiming

to get back the money that was paid to the opposite parties since the death of his wife i.e Rs.37720/- and compensation for mental agony suffered for Rs.12,000/- and Rs.2,500/- as cost.

2. After admitting the complaint notice was served to the opposite parties for their appearance. 2^nd opposite party has not appeared before the forum. Hence he was set exparte. 1^st opposite party appeared and filed the version stating the following contentions.

3. The 1^st opposite party stated that no part of transaction has taken place within the jurisdiction of this forum. Along with the housing loan facility 1^st opposite parties has extended the benefit of insurance coverage for the principal sum outstanding on accidental death to the borrower. The housing loan availed by complainant's wife was under “Sampoorna Rakshak” scheme and the insurance coverage for the said scheme was offered free of cost. Also the complainant and his wife has accepted all the terms and conditions of the loan and signed the contract with the opposite parties. The complainant has clearly mentioned that his wife died due to kidney failure. The opposite parties stated that the death of the complainant's wife cannot be interpreted as an accidental death. Further 1^st opposite party stated that the none of the officials of the opposite parties has given any offer that the death of any cause will be covered by the insurance policy. Hence opposite parties argued that complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. Complainant as well as 1^st opposite party filed proof affidavits along with documents. Exts.A1 and A2 marked on the side of the complainant. Exts.B1 to B3 marked on the side of opposite party. Matter heard.

5. Issues to be decided are;

1. Whether the forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?

2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties? and

3. If so, what is the relief and cost?

6. Issue No.1: We perused relevant documents on record. The 1^st opposite party stated that the loan was availed from the Branch Office of the opposite party at Thrissur. No part of transaction has taken place at Palakkad. But the 1^st opposite party admitted

in version that the opposite party is having only a service centre at Palakkad. Also Ext.A2 is

issued in the 2^nd opposite party office at Palakkad. Hence we hold the view that the forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

7. Issue No.2 & 3: The complainant argued that the housing loan availed by his wife was under Amar Chhaya policy. After the death of the wife the complainant contacted the opposite parties officials to get the details of his wife's insurance papers. But there was no response. The 1^st opposite party stated that the housing loan availed by complainant's wife was under Sampoorna Rakshak policy. Under the said policy, the insurance coverage was given only on accidental death and the same is issued free of cost. 1^st opposite party produced Ext.B1 loan agreement executed by the complainant and his wife and stated no clause in the agreement provided insurance coverage for death of any cause. Ext.B2 is the letter executed by the complainant and his wife with regard to insurance coverage under “Triple Protection Plan”. In the version 1^st opposite party stated that the Sampoorna Rakshak insurance policy is offered to the complainant and his wife. Further stated that the Sampoorna Rakshak policy covers only accidental death. But the 2^nd opposite party adduced no evidence to show that the Triple Protection Plan and Sampoorna Rakshak plan are one and the same. There is no evidence produced for showing that how the complainant and his wife was come under the Sampoorna Rakshak policy. There is no brochure or conditions produced by the 2^nd opposite party for Triple Protection Plan. Therefore the statement of the opposite parties that Sampoorna Rakshak Insurance policy is offered to the complainant seem to be unacceptable in the absence of any evidence. The complainant stated that at the time of taking the loan the opposite parties assured that housing loan covers insurance and in the event of death of the applicant there is no need to pay the monthly repayments. Accordingly the opposite parties have given their brochures and are marked as Ext.A1 and Ext.A2. On receipt of the notice of the complaint, 2^nd opposite party has neglected to appear before the forum and filed any version. In view of the above circumstances we are of the view that there is deficiency of service on the part of 2^nd opposite parties.

9. The complainant stated that his wife had taken the loan on the condition that they were provided insurance coverage under the scheme of Amar Chhaya i.e. Ext.A1. The 1^st opposite parties has not produced any evidence to show that the complainant's wife will not come under the Amar Chhaya policy. As per Ext.B3 we cannot say that the Sampoorna Rakshak policy comes under the meaning of Triple Protection Plan. We find that the reasons mentioned by the 1^st opposite party for denial of the insurance claim is against the principles

of natural justice. It is certain that the complainant is entitled for the insurance claim benefits as promised in the policy. Denial of the insurance claim by opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service on their part. In the result, the complaint is allowed.

10. Hence we direct the opposite parties to return an amount of Rs.37,720/- (Rupees Thirty seven thousand seven hundred and twenty only) collected from the complainant after death of his wife and exempt the complainant from further payment of EMI to the loan availed by the wife of the complainant and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as compensation and Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost to the complainant within one month from the date of order failing which the whole amount shall carry 9% interest from the date of order till realisation.

11. Pronounced in the open court on this the 27^th day of January, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

Appendix

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Brochure

Ext.A2 - Brochure

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite parties

Ext.B1 – Copy of Loan agreement

Ext.B2 – Letter dt.24/4/06 regarding Triple Protection Plan

Ext.B3 – Brochure regarding insurance coverage to complainant

Cost (allowed)

Rs.500/- (Rupees Five hundred only) as cost to the complainant