BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 04/03/2011

Date of Order : 13/02/2013

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 130/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The facts of the complainant's case are as follows :-

The complainant is the widow of late V.S. Dilip. Late V.S. Dilip availed himself of “SBI Life Super Suraksha” life insurance cover in respect of housing loan from the 3^rd opposite party. As per the scheme of the policy in case of death of the insured who has availed the loan, the entire outstanding amount would be discharged. The insured passed away on 07-08-2010. The outstanding amount payable in the housing loan amount was Rs. 4,64,167.81. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties sanctioned Rs. 4,18,539/- only against the claim of the outstanding amount. Now, the 3^rd opposite party is taking steps to realise the balance amount. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to clear the entire outstanding amount in the loan account and to pay damages to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- together with costs of the proceedings. This complaint hence.

2. The version of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties :-

The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties have a group insurance scheme for the borrowers of housing loans of the 3^rd opposite party by name “SBI Life Super Suraksha”. As per the silence, the insured borrower is granted insurance coverage for the outstanding loan amount with the bank as per the original EMI schedule. Late V.S. Dilip had borrowed a housing loan from the 3^rd opposite party for an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs. Any loan amount disbursed after the commencement of the insurance cover was not covered under the policy. Further, loan amounts were disbursed on 29-12-2003, 20-01-2004, 27-01-2004 and 09-02-2004 totalling to Rs. 2 lakhs were not covered under the policy. The outstanding EMI repayment schedule for loan amount of Rs. 5 lakhs was paid to the 3^rd opposite party on 02-11-2011 July. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

3. The contention of the 3^rd opposite party :

A housing loan for an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs had been sanctioned on 20-12-2001 to one V.S. Dilip and the same was secured by a SBI Life Insurance Policy dated 14-02-2003 with effect from 03-02-2003. The loan was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 7 lakhs on 29-12-2003, the insurance premium for the additional sum assured has not been paid. An amount of Rs. 4,18,539/- only has been paid by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. The complainant has to remit the outstanding balance amount with interest. The complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine.

4. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exts. A1 to A6 and B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the complainant and the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties respectively. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The points that arose for consideration are :-

1. Whether the opposite parties are liable to clear the entire outstanding amount in the loan account of late Dilip?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties?

6. Point No. i. :- The following issues are undisputed :

1. The complainant's husband late V.S. Dilip availed a housing loan from the 3^rd opposite party for an amount of Rs. 5 lakhs.

2. The loan was covered by a Life Insurance Policy with effect from 03-02-2003 issued by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties having coverage on the life of late V.S. Dilip.

3. The loan was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 7 lakhs on 29-12-2003 with no insurance coverage.

4. During the currency of the insurance policy, the insured V.S. Dilip expired on 07-08-2010.

5. The opposite parties 1 and 2 paid Rs. 4,18,539/- to the 3^rd opposite party against the total outstanding amount of Rs. 4,64,167.87.

7. Admittedly, the subsequent enhancement of loan amount to Rs. 7 lakhs from 5 lakhs has not been intimated to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties by the 3^rd opposite party. It is not in dispute that the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties paid the insurance amount to the 3^rd opposite party in terms of Ext. B1 policy. Since, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties disbursed the insurance claim of the complainant in tune with the terms and conditions in Ext. B1, we cannot find any deficiency in service on their part in repudiating the remaining claim of the complainant, especially since the same had not been duly informed to them and they were unaware of a responsibility, if such.

8. Indisputably, the beneficiaries of Ext. B1 policy is the 3^rd opposite party or any person(s) authorised by the 3^rd opposite party. In the instant case, admittedly the 3^rd opposite party failed to intimate the subsequent enhancement of the loan amount to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to which no reason is forthcoming. Had the 3^rd opposite party intimated the same to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties in time and the insured to pay the premium this complaint would not have arisen. The failure of which alone clears the liability of the complainant of her responsibility.

9. Substantially in view of the above, we are only to hold that the complainant is not liable to pay any more amount in the loan account of late V.S. Dilip. Held so. We have duly considered the grievance of the complainant and having nothing to show that the legal aspects have not been considered. We are not to award compensation and costs of the proceedings, which tantamounts to appreciation.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 13^th day of February 2013.

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member. Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-

=========