BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI Dated this the 30th day of April, 2009
Present: SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN PRESIDENT SMT.SHEELA JACOB MEMBER SMT.BINDU SOMAN MEMBER
C.C No.52/2008 Between Complainant : Augustine P.C. Pallikkunnel House, Ezhumuttom P.O, Thodupuzha. (By Advs: M.K.Kunjachan & K.M.Sanu) And Opposite Party : The Manager, State Bank of India, Thodupuzha Branch, Thodupuzha. (By Adv: Jolly James) O R D E R SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER)
The complainant's daughter Namitha mol availed an Educational loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite party bank for joining in Engineering College, Muttom. Of the loan Rs.1,50,000/- was issued as the 1st installment. At the time of sanctioning the loan, on the representation that Namitha mol would be insured for Rs. 2,00,000/- and that the complainant would be the niminee. The complainant signed the documents at the time of taking loan. On 11/04/02 the complainant's daughter died in an accident. The fact was informed to the opposite party with a request to submit necessary application for claiming insurance benefits. But the opposite party did not take any action. The caution deposit of Rs.1,00,000/- was sent to the opposite party by the college authorities on 14/08/2002. On 19/03/2008 the complainant signed some papers to the bank. On 14/03/08, the opposite party sent a demand notice to the complainant to pay Rs.44,200/- as the balance amount of loan. Since the opposite party was reluctant to disburse the insurance amount, alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party, the complaint has been filed for getting a direction to pay the insurance amount after deducting the loan amount along with compensation, costs, etc.
2. In the written version filed by the opposite party, it is admitted that a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- was sanctioned in the name of Namitha mol and that Rs.1,50,000/- was disbursed to the Educational Institution. The loan was sanctioned without taking the insurance policy. The Educational loan scheme of the State Bank of India does not stipulate compulsory life insurance cover for students while sanctioning education loans. The bank has not collected any amount from the complainant to insure her daughter. The bank has published the terms and conditins of State Bank of India educatinal loan scheme. In the said terms and conditions also there is no mention about the insurance of the student. In the fact there was no policy in existence in the name of the Namitha mol in connection with her education loan. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
3. The point for consideration is whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to?
4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and 2 and Exts.P1 to P3 on the side of the complainant and the testimony of DW1 and Ext.R1 to R5 on the side of the opposite party.
5. The POINT:- The fact that the complainant's daughter availed an educational loan from the opposite party bank and the first installment Rs.1,50,000/-was already disbursed in favour of the institution, are admitted. But unfortunately after one year she died in a motor vehicle accident. Now the case of the complainant is that at the time when the loan was applied for, the opposite party took an LIC on the representation that Namitha mol would be insured for Rs.2,00,000/-. But the opposite party would deny this allegation and would contend that the loan was sanctioned without taking the insurance policy. That apart no premium was paid nor any medical certificate or other papers were supplied to apply for insurance. The complainant as PW1 would swear that, at the time when the loan was sanctioned, the opposite party had obtained necessary documents for taking insurance policy in the name of Namitha mol. Ext.P1 is the copy of letter issued by the college dated 14/08/02 to the complainant stated that Rs.1,00,000/- (Refund of returnable deposit) was refunded to the opposite party. Ext.P2 is the demand notice dated 14/03/08 to the complainant, to pay Rs.44,200/- as the balance amount of the loan. Ext.P3 is the copy of the PAN book. Ext.P4 is the term loan revival letter. Ext.P5 is the revival letter. In the cross examination he would admit that the bank has taken the insurance directly and he could not remember the policy number. PW2 is a person, who also had availed an educational loan for his son from the State Bank of Travencore. He had taken insurance policy on behalf of his son as per the directions of the bank and received a policy also. In the cross examination he would admit that he is not aware about the terms and conditions of SBI educational loan scheme, he availed loan from another bank. So the evidence of PW2 would show that taking of insurance policy was not a condition precedent for disbursing loan. The opposite party as DW1 would swear that the student loan scheme of the State Bank of India did not stipulate compulsory life insurance cover for students while sanctioning edcuation loan. Ext.R1 is the copy of the arrangement letter -Education loan scheme dated 20/11/01. Ext.R2 is the copy of the joint account in the name of the complainant and his daughter. Ext.R3 is the copy of SBI educational loan scheme. Ext.R4 is the letter dated 24/03/08 sent by the complainant. Ext.R5 is the revival letter. In the Ext.R1 Arrangement letter-education loan scheme, the 7th condition, the house or flat or buiding shall be insured comprehensively for the market value covering fire, flood etc. Now the only question is whether there was any laches on the part of the opposite party. The complainant has no case that any proposal has been given for taking the insurance. So there was no reliable circumstances to believe that the insurance policy was not taken due to any lapses on the part of the opposite party. There is no deficiency in service also can be found against the opposite party. So the direction prayed for in the complainant cannot be granted. In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost is ordered against the petitioner.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of April, 2009. Sd/- SMT.SHEELA JACOB(MEMBER) Sd/- SRI.LAIJU RAMAKRISHNAN(PRESIDENT) Sd/- SMT.BINDU SOMAN(MEMBER) APPENDIX
Depositions : On the side of Complainant : PW1 - Augustiane P.C. PW2 - Adv. Eapen Martin On the side of Opposite Parties : DW1 - Shiny Alexander. Exhibits: On the side of Complainant: Ext.P1 - Copy of letter No.UCET/Cash/2002-03, dated 14/08/2002. Ext.P2 - Demand Notice, dated 14/03/2008. Ext.P3 - Copy of Loan Pass Book. Ext.P4 - Term Loan Revival letter, dated 21/07/2004. Ext.P5 - Revival Letter, dated 16/11/2006. On the side of Opposite Parties : Ext.R1 - True Copy of Arrangement letter - Education Loan scheme, dated 20/11/2002. Ext.R2 - True Copy of Joint Account. Ext.R3 - True Copy of SB Educational Loan Scheme. Ext.R4 - Letter issued by the complainant to the opposite party, dated 24/03/2008. Ext.R5 - Revival Letter, dated 24/03/2008.
| 
