Date of Filing: 02.06.2011
Date of Order: 20.03.2012
BEFORE THE KOLAR DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, KOLAR.
Dated: 20th DAY OF MARCH -2012
PRESENT
Sri. H.V. Ramachandra Rao, BSc., B.L, President
Smt. K.G. Shantala, Member
Sri. T. Nagaraja, Member
C.C. NO.136/2011
(1) Yalachappa,
No.1440, 4th Main, 4th Cross,
P.C.Extension, Kolar.
(2) Y.Prabeesh,
S/o. Yalachappa,
No.1440, 4th Main, 4th Cross,
P.C. Extension, Kolar.
(Rep. by Sri.V.K.Prashanth, Advocate) …COMPLAINANT.,
-V/s-
(1) The Manager,
Sundram Finance,
21, Patullos Road,
Chennai-600 002.
(Rep. by B.Kumar, Advocate)
(2) The Manager,
Kotak Mahindra Old Mutual Life
Insurance Limited, 8th Floor,
Godrej Coliseum,
Behind Everard Nagar,
Sion (East), Mumbai-400022.
(Rep. by Xavier and Beerappa, Advocates) …..OPPOSITE PARTIES.
ORDER
BY SRI. H.V. RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant Under Section-12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties to credit the entire principal outstanding to the loan agreement of the complainant, close the loan account and to pay Rs.4,00,000/-, are necessary :-
The wife of the complainant Smt. Munivenkatamma had availed car loan from the opposite party No.1 and entered in to Sundram Credit Protect Life Insurance cover with the opposite party No.1. She died on 05.11.2008 and this was intimated to the opposite party No.1 with the required documents along with original policy and sought statement to pay the rest of the amount apart from the principal outstanding. The opposite party No.1 directed the complainant by notice dated: 15.02.2011 to pay Rs.4,52,418/- as the policy has covered only to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- and without any intimation to the complainants realized Rs.1,70,666/- from the insurance policy instead of Rs.3,80,625/-. The opposite parties colluded with each other. The policy which was issued by the opposite parties reads thus:-
“This life insurance cover under the policy contract is restricted to the outstanding principal loan amount as at the date of death and the balance outstanding if any due from you would be governed by the loan agreement between you and Sundaram finance Limited”.
Hence the complainant issued notice to the opposite party No.1 on 30.05.2009 even then the opposite parties have not cared to comply with it. Hence the complaint.
2(a). In brief the version of the opposite party No.1 are:-
The wife of the 1st complainant Smt.Munivenkatamma approached the opposite party for a vehicle loan and in this regard an agreement was entered in to on 28.06.2008 for which the 1st complainant was co-obligant and Rs.6,19,057/- was granted as loan payable repayable in 36 EMIs from 10.07.2008 and the vehicle No.KA-07-M-2375 was purchased. The deceased died on 05.11.2008. The borrower insured under the scheme of Sundaram Credit Protect to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- only and not for Rs.5,00,000/-. The insurance of the 2nd opposite party was limited to Rs.2,00,000/- and accordingly after the death the amount of Rs.1,70,666/- has been paid. There is an arbitration clause in the agreement. Hence this Forum cannot entertain the complaint. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
2(b). In brief the version of opposite party No.2 are:-
This opposite party is a separate business entity. This is not a consumer dispute. Under Kotak complete cover group plan the insurance was made. That is a contract between the opposite parties interse. As per the policy the amount is paid to the 1st opposite party. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, the complainant has filed his affidavit. The opposite party No.2 has filed a memo stating that the version and documents be read as its affidavit and also filed the written arguments. The arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
(A) Whether there is deficiency in service?
(B) What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are:-
POINT (A) & (B):- As per the detailed order
for the following:-
REASONS
Point (A) & (B):-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant No.1 is the husband and the complaint No.2 is the son of the deceased Smt.Munivenkatamma who had obtained a car loan and in this regard the Sundaram Credit Protect an insurance cover of the opposite party No.2 was made. The said Munivenkatamma died on 05.01.2008 leaving behind the complainants to succeed. It is also an admitted fact that after the death of Munivenkatamma the complainant made a claim regarding the insurance and the opposite party No.2 has sent only Rs.1,70,666/- and not the full amount in the entire amount due as on that day towards the principal. It is also an undisputed fact that on that date of death the total principal outstanding was Rs.3,8,625/-. According to the complainant this whole Rs.3,80,625/- should have been paid by the opposite party No.2 to opposite party No.1 and they cannot pay only Rs.1,70,666/- and this is deficiency in service. According to the opposite parties the deceased had insured the life at Rs.2,00,000/- only and hence the amount of Rs.1,70,666/- has been paid.
7. To understand each case and to know it is better to consider the certificate of cover and its clauses. The certificate of cover reads thus:-
That is to say the life insurance cover under the policy is restricted to the
outstanding principal loan amount as on the date of death and the balance outstanding if any due from the deceased would be covered by the loan agreement between the lonee and the Sundaram finance limited. That means as on the date of the death of the deceased whatever is the principal that was there with respect to the loan has to be paid by the Insurance Company and any other is due has to be paid by the heirs of the deceased. This is the terms of the policy and this is the terms of the agreement. When that is the case stating that the opposite parties are liable to pay only Rs.2,00,000/- as the sum assured is only Rs.2,00,000/-, this is an untenable contention. The certificate of cover clearly mandates the opposite party No.2 is liable to pay Rs.3,80,625/- and if the opposite party No.1 who has to receive it has to claim for that and adjust Rs.3,80,625/- and not only Rs.1,70,666/-. As this has not been done, this is deficiency in service. Even after issue of notice the opposite parties have not rectified it.
8. The principal as on the date of the death of the deceased has to be closed by the opposite parties either by opposite party No.2 paying it to the opposite party No.1 or opposite party No.1 receiving it from the opposite party No.2 as the case may be. The rest of the amount i.e., interest, incidental charges, etc., has to be paid by the complainants. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The opposite party No.2 is directed to pay the sum of Rs.2,09,959/- to the opposite party No.1 towards the entire satisfaction of the principal as on the date of the death of the lonee Smt. Munivenkatamma and the principal as on that day stands discharged and no due is there towards the principal.
3. The opposite party No.1 is at liberty to recover from complainant any further amount that may be due regarding incidental charges and interest as on the date of the death of the deceased if any due and not any other amount.
4. The opposite party shall issue “No Due Certificate” in this regard.
5. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs of this litigation to the complainant.
6. The parties are directed to comply with the above said order within 30 days from the date of this order and submit the compliance report with necessary documents to this Forum within 45 days from the date of this order.
7. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as Under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
8. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 20th Day of MARCH 2012)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
