Complaints filed on: 30-06-2022
Disposed on: 30-12-2022
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, TUMAKURU
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022
PRESENT
SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, B.Com., LLM., PRESIDENT
SRI.KUMARA.N, B.Sc. (Agri), LL.B., MBA., MEMBER
CC.No.105/2022
Sri. Obalesh B.K. S/o Late Krishnappa,
A/a 23 years, R/at Near Narasimhaswamy Temple,
Battiganahalli Village, Doddaagrahara Village,
Doddaagrahara Post, Kallambella Hobli,
Sira Taluk, Tumakuru District.
……….Complainant
(By Sri. T.K.Sundaresh, Advocate)
V/s
1. The Manager, John Deere Financial India Pvt.
Shantinath Motors, Behind Shanthinath Honda,
Sira Road, Tumkur – 572 106.
2. The Manager,
M/s Aditya Birla Life Insurance Co., Ltd.,
Jeevan Soudha Building, PDI No.57-27-N-19,
Ground Floor, No.19/19, 24th Main Road,
J.P.Nagar, Bangalore.
……….Opposite Party
(OP No.1 By Sri. Renukesh, Advocate)
(OP No.2- Notice refused, deemed to be served)
:ORDER:
BY SMT.G.T.VIJAYALAKSHMI, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the OPs U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 with a prayer to direct the OP/Insurance Company to settle the death claim amount and wave up the loan amount and make payment of the said amount as per claim preferred by the complainant and award a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.50,000/- as damages and other incidental reliefs together with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of complaint to till the date of payment together with cost.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The Father of the complainant decided to purchase Tractor for his agriculture work, as such approached the OP No.1 for financial assistance and finally decided to purchase the Tractor for Rs.6,10,000/- and accordingly when contacted the OP No.1 as per their directions, the Father of complainant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.1,26,000/- as down payment towards purchase of the Tractor and then the OP No.1 sanctioned a loan of Rs.4,84,000/- under loan A/c No.155944 with interest @ 10.17% p.a. and tenure of the said loan period is 48 months. It is further submitted that while granting the said loan amount, as per the directions of OP No.1, the OP No.2 come forward to provide the policy to the vehicle as well as PA claim and other benefits by obtaining necessary premium and when the Father of complainant had paid the necessary premium, the OP No.2 had issued a policy to the said vehicle along with other benefits vide policy No.507816 under Group Policy Member ID 1 ABSL1012021000000006980 and the said policy is valid till today by virtue of these transactions, it is clear that the said Krishnappa i.e. Father of complainant is the consumer under the OPs and he also made the complainant as his Nominee. It is further conducted that after conducting all physical tests, the OP No.2 come to the conclusion that the deceased Krishanppa was fit and fine and not suffering from any kind of disease and hence issued the policy in favour of said Krishnappa.
The complainant further submitted that after purchase of the vehicle and obtaining the policy, the Father of complainant was propmp in paying the installments regularly to the OPs, unfortunately the said Krishnappa died on 08.05.2021 at his house, and his death is natural death, and there was no disease or any other cause to his death and he died leaving behind him the complainant as his Class-I legal heir who is his Nominee to the said policy and to prove the death of Krishnappa, the concerned Gramapanchayathi, Gopaladevarahalli, Sira Taluk, had issued certificate dated:18.11.2021. It is further submitted that being a nominee, the complainant approached the Ops claiming the death benefits of his deceased Father and also to wave up all the loan amount as per the terms and conditions of the policy, but the OP No.2 had repudiated the same on the condition that the deceased Krishnappa was not in a good health condition even though the documents produced while sanctioning loan are clearly establishes that he said Krishnappa was in good health condition. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on the part of OPs in repudiating the claim of the complainant. The repudiation made is unjust and unfair. Hence, the complainant without any alternative filed this complaint.
3. Notice issued to OP No.2 returned with postal shara as “refused”. Hence, notice to OP No.2 deemed to be served and OP No.2 called out absent. On receipt of notice issued by this Commission, the OP No.1 appeared and filed its version contending that the complainant is not a consumer of OP No.1 since the transactions of the issue on hand are no way related to OP No.1 and hence the complainant does not come within the definition of consumer as per section 2(7) of the C.P. Act 2019 against OP No.1 and hence prays to dismiss the complaint in the light of the said provision. The OP No.1 contended that the Father of complainant approached the OP No.1 for availing financial facility of Rs.4,84,000/- for purchase of a Tractor and with the help of OP No.1 the complainant’s Father purchased the Tractor agreeing to repay the said loan with interest and other charges as applicable and as per terms of the loan agreement by way of half yearly installments of Rs.85,100/- each in 8 installments commencing from 9.09.2021 to 09.03.2025 and even otherwise none of the agreed EMIs paid by the borrower and the statement of loan account dated:11.08.2022 apart from future installment. It is further contended that the financial facility was covered with insurance policy issued by OP No.2 in favour of complainant’s Father as member insured i.e., the borrower of OP No.1 and John Deere Financial India Private Limited as master policy holder dated:09.03.2021 with commencement of risk from 09.03.2021 to 09.03.2005 by collecting the premium of Rs.14,396.97 from the borrower and there is no absolutely no dispute by the complainant saying that no insurance policy was issued even though the premium amount was collected by the OPs. It is further contended that in the said insurance policy, the role of OP No.1 was that to provide the loan particulars to the OP No.1 and that part of the work of OP No.1 was completely done by the OP No.1 as being the financier. It means to say that there was no pending work to be done in respect of the said insurance policy by the OP No.1, as such there will be no further role to be played by the financier against the disputed claims of the insured. It is further contended that after the demise of borrower, the complainant had submitted the death claim to the OP No.2 on 12.02.2022 as per the terms of the insurance policy, however, the OP No.2 repudiated the death claim of deceased Krishnappa by giving reasons that the insured was suffering from diseases like Ischemic Heart disease, Dilated Cardiomyopathy, Severe LV dysfunction and type 2 diabetes prior to signing of declaration of good health in the policy. No service is pending in the end of OP No.1 towards the death claim of the insured. Despite knowing well that there is absolutely no role on the part of OP No.1 unwarrantedly, made it as one of the parties in the current proceedings. It is further submitted that all other averments/allegations which have not specifically traversed herein are hereby totally denied as false, frivolous, and baseless and concocted only for the purpose of filing this complaint. On these among other grounds, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and also marked the documents at Ex.P1 to P5. Sri. Rajshekar Kabbur, Collection Manager, of OP No.1 filed his affidavit evidence on behalf of OP No.1 and marked the documents at Ex.R1.
5. We have heard the arguments of counsel for complainant. We have perused the written arguments filed by OP No.1 The OP No.1 did not address his oral arguments in spite of sufficient time granted to address arguments.
6. On perusal of pleadings and documents produced complainant and OP No.1, the points that would arise for our consideration are:
1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of OPs?
2) Whether complainant is entitled for reliefs sought for?
7. Our findings to the aforesaid points are as under:
Point No.1: Partly in the affirmative
Point No.2: As per the final order
:REASONS:
8. On perusal of pleadings, evidence and documents submitted by the parties, it is an admitted fact that the complainant’s Father purchased the tractor for Rs.6,10,000/- and he seeks financial assistance from OP No.1. The OP No.1 sanctioned the loan of Rs.4,84,000/- with interest @ 10.17% P.A. and tenure of the loan period is 48 months. As per directions of OP No.1, the OP No.2 issued the policy to the said vehicle as well as P.A. claim and other benefits by obtaining necessary premium. The Father of the complainant made the complainant as his nominee. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant’s Father i.e. Krishnappa died on 08.05.2021 at this house and his death is natural death. As a nominee to the said policy and to prove the death of Krishnappa, the complainant produced the certificate issued by the Gopaladevarahalli Gramapanchayath, Sira Taluk on 18.11.2021.
9. The main allegation of the complainant is that, the OP No.2 repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that “the deceased Krishnappa was not in a good health condition even though the documents produced while sanctioning the loan are clearly establishes that the said Krishnappa was in good health condition”. The repudiation made is unjust and unfair.
10. For the allegation of the complainant, the OP No.1 contended that the financier of that the financial facility was covered with insurance policy issued by OP No.2 in favour of complainant’s Father as member insured i.e., the borrower of OP No.1 and John Deere Financial India Private Limited as master policy holder dated:09.03.2021 with commencement of risk from 09.03.2021 to 09.03.2005 by collecting the premium of Rs.14,396.97 from the borrower and in the said insurance policy, the role of OP No.1 was that to provide the loan particulars to the OP No.2 and that part of the work of OP No.1 was completely done by the OP No.1 as being the financier. It means to say that there was no pending work to be done in respect of the said insurance policy by the OP No.1, as such there will be no further role to be played by the financier against the disputed claims of the insured.
11. In spite of service of notice, the OP No.2 not appeared before the Commission to challenge the allegation made by the complainant. The OP No.2 repudiated the death claim of the deceased Krishnappa by giving reasons that “on 12.02.2022 as per the terms of the insurance policy, however, the OP No.2 repudiated the death claim of deceased Krishnappa by giving reasons that the insured was suffering from diseases like Ischemic Heart disease, Dilated Cardiomyopathy, Severe LV dysfunction and type 2 diabetes prior to signing of declaration of good health in the policy”. But OP No.2 failed to appear before this Commission and thereby failed to establish their case by producing the evidence or documents pertaining to Krishnappa. The existence of pre existing disease is not sufficient to repudiate the claim and the death of the insured should actually occur due to the pre existing disease. So, repudiation of the claim cannot be made on the ground that the existence of diseases. Thus, the OP No.2 liable to pay death benefit and waive off the loan amount. There is no allegation of deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1. Hence, complaint against OP No.1 is liable to be dismissed. Further, due to the deficiency of service of on the part of OP No.2, the complainant compelled to approach this Commission. Hence, the OP No.2 is liable to Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses to the complainant. Accordingly, we pass the following:-
:ORDER:
The complaint filed by complainant is allowed in part.
The OP No.2 is directed to pay the death benefit as per policy and waive off the loan amount.
The OP No.2 is further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
Further, the OP No.2 is directed to comply the above order within 45 days from the date of receipt/knowledge of the order.
The complaint against OP No.1 is dismissed.
Supply free copy of this order to both parties
