DATE OF FILING : 06-01-2012.
DATE OF S/R : 07-05-2012.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 27-09-2012.
Anima Das,
Kamardanga Battala, Pallavpukur,
P.O. Santragachi,
District –Howrah,
PIN – 711104. ----------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.
- Versus -
The Branch Manager,
UCO Bank,Shibpur Branch ( 0926 ),
170, G.T. Road ( South ), Shibpur,
PIN Code : 711102. --------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.
Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee.
Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
F I N A L O R D E R
The complainant, Smt. Anima Das, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p., UCO Bank, Shibpur Branch ( 0926 ) to liquidate the entire loan amount which stands in the loan A/c being no. 09260610000922 held by the complainant and her husband, Nemai Ch. Das, since deceased and to return the Deed of their own land so mortgaged with the Bank along with other relief.
Complainant and her husband applied for a housing loan to o.p. And o.p. vide their sanction letter dated 24-08-2007, as annexed herewith, sanctioned an amount of Rs. 6,47,000/- as against loan account no. 09260610000922 held jointly by the complainant and her deceased husband. The complainant further stated that o.p. bank actually disbursed Rs. 6,06,022/- through three installments being Rs. 3,00,000/- on 02-11-2007, Rs. 1,00,000/- on 13-02-2008 and lastly on 26-03-2008 for Rs. 2,06,022/-.
Before the disbursement of third installment complainant’s husband requested the Bank to disburse the rest amount lying in their loan a/c in full. But o.p. disbursed only Rs. 2,06,022/- on 26-03-2008. And the complainant and her husband since deceased came to a conclusion that as per the sanctioned advice dated 24-08-2007, o.p. had deducted Rs. 40,978/- as premium to buy UCO Griha Laxmi Yojana Life Insurance Policy, for which premium was to be paid only for once. Subsequently, they started paying EMI of Rs. 8,555/- to Bank towards the repayment of the said loan. But unfortunately, on 08-01-2010, complainant’s husband, Nemai Ch. Das died and it was informed to o.p. on 25-01-2010, letter dated 25-01-2010 annexed herewith, with a request to realize the balance loan amount which was more or less Rs. 5,00,000/- from his insurance policy and to settle the loan a/c accordingly. As the complainant did not receive any reply from o.p. till 16-02-2010, she wrote to the Manager, Home Loan Section, UCO Bank, Kolkata, with the same prayer with all details on 17-02-2010, letter dated 17-02-2010 is annexed herewith. And it was replied by UCO Bank, Head Office, Retail Banking Department, Kolkata, vide the letter dated 17-02-2010 i.e. on the same date with an assurance that her matter has been taken up with their Zonal Office, Howrah, and they would revert to her at the earliest. Even on 16-02-2010, complainant by sending a letter asked for the statement of loan a/c to know the present status of the same. And on 19-02-2010, o.p. sent a letter to the complainant stating therein that as the complainant’s husband did not deposit the insurance premium of Rs. 40,978/- , the life of said Nemai Ch. Das, since deceased, could not be covered, although it was informed through sanction letter dated 24-08-2007 by Retial Asset Manager of Zonal Office, Howrah. And thereby, o.p. declined to cover the life of said Nemai Ch. Das. Thereafter the complainant sent several letters dated 13.03.2010, 22-03-2010 to consider her request and to adjust the loan amount as she would not be able to repay the loan amount. But all went in vain. Even complainant lodged a complaint with Banking Ombudsman. And Ombudsman passed an order dated 08-04-2011 whereby no deficiency, whatsoever was levelled
against Bank as complainant’s husband did not sign and submit any life insurance policy with the bank and as a result, life insurance policy could not be bought. Being aggrieved, complainant filed this case against o.p. alleging deficiency in service.
Notice was served. O.P. appeared and filed written version.
DECISION WITH REASONS :
By paying the processing fee of Rs. 3,635/- for availing themselves of a home loan of Rs. 6,47,000/-, complainant becomes a consumer of the o.p. bank. We have carefully gone through the written version filed by the o.p. and noted its contents. O.p. vide para nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 & 13 has denied all allegations made out by the complainant in the petition against them. But on careful perusal of the statement of account furnished by Bank for the period of 10-10-2007 to 16-03-2010, we can find that Bank had disbursed only Rs. 6.06,022/- out of the Rs. 6,47,000/- as sanctioned by the o.p. as home loan on different dates i.e. on 02-11-2007, 13-02-2008 and on 26-03-2008, Rs. 40,978/- was never disbursed by Bank as loan to the complainant, wherefrom it is crystal clear that as per their sanction advice dated 24-08-2007, Rs. 40,978/ was kept by them as insurance premium. And the amount was lying with them since 24-08-2007. Now, the Bank is taking a false plea that there was no material instruction from the complainant or her husband regarding the purchase of said UCO Griha Laxmi Life Insurance Policy. The name of the policy itself suggests that this particular life insurance policy is very much tagged with ‘UCO Shelter’ policy of o.p. Now, only to cover their faults they are taking all these pleas. Moreover, when they had retained the amount of Rs. 40,978/-, they were under serious obligation to seek instruction from the complainant or her husband whether the policy would be bought or not. But there is no such scope. As from the Sanction Advice dated 24-08-2007, it is crystal clear that the loan would be disbursed with a precondition that insurance premium was also to be deducted. And only for that o.p. never disbursed the entire sanction loan amount of Rs. 6,47,000/-. But o.p. neither bought insurance policy nor disbursed the amount which is nothing but a gross negligence on the part of the o.p. There was no requirement for separate instruction to be given to the o.p. for deducting processing fee of Rs. 3,635/- on 13-02-2008 or Rs. 3,634/- for NICL on 03-08-2008. Such a big amount of Rs. 40,978/- kept by o.p., was lying idle. O.p. should have taken the matter with all seriousness as because, it is a matter relating to home loan. The complainant has lost her husband, now she cannot be thrown out homeless. And complainant and her husband already allowed o.p. to do the needful for purchasing life insurance policy. As even after the disbursement of third installment when they came to conclusion that for payment of insurance premium of Rs. 40,978/-, o.p. did not disburse the entire sanctioned loan amount of Rs. 6,47,000/-, they never asked for the disbursement of the said amount. And the third installment was disbursed on 26-08-2008. And complainant’s husband died on 25-01-2010. During this long period, o.p. did not take any positive initiative, which is nothing but gross deficiency in service on the part of o.p. Also o.p. adopted an unfair trade practice in this respect. O.P. has declined to cover life of the complainant’s husband with all malafide intention which should not be allowed.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 1 of 2012 ( HDF 1 of 2012 ) be allowed on contest.
The O.P. is directed to liquidate the entire loan amount lying outstanding in the
name of the complainant against loan a/c being no. 09260610000922 within one
month from the date of this order.
The o.p. is further directed to return the Deed of Land, so mortaged with them within one month from this order.
The complainant do get an award of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation cost which are to be paid by o.p. within one month from this date. In case of non compliance by o.p. within the stipulated period, a penalty of Rs. 50/- per day shall be charged against o.p. till full compliance.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
