Punjab

StateCommission

FA/12/995

Inder Mohan Dogra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Union Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Vishal Aggarwal

02 Sep 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.995 of 2012

 

                                                Date of Institution: 30.07.2012

                                                Date of Decision :  02.09.2015

 

Inder Mohan Dogra son of Shri. Charan Dass, resident of 1675, Mohalla Rehmanpura, Nakodar, District Jalandhar.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  …..Appellant/Complainant  

                                      Versus

1.      The Manager, Union Bank of India, Nurmahal Road,       Jalandhar.

2.      The Regional Manager, Union Bank of India, Civil Lines,          Jalandhar.

 

                                                                                  … Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

First Appeal against order dated 14.06.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Jalandhar.

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri. Harcharan Singh Guram, Member

Present:-

          For the appellant                   :         Sh.Manoj Dhiman, Advocate

          For the respondents              :          None.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against the respondents of this appeal (the opposite parties in the complaint), challenging order dated 14.06.2012 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Jalandhar, dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The instant appeal has been preferred by the complainant now appellant in this appeal against the same.

2.      The complainant Inder Mohan Dogra has filed  the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that his wife availed a loan of Rs.8,70,000/- from OP No.1. The complete formalities of insurance premium of Rs.63,901/- was deducted from her loan account and certificate of insurance bearing no.83UNB/33374 of S.B.I Life Super Suraksha dated 17.09.2008 was issued by S.B.I Life Insurance Company Limited,  certifying that the Pooja Rani named as  housing loan borrower was insured for a sum assured equal to the outstanding loan amount with OPs, as per the original EMI. The loan amount was to be paid in equal monthly installments. Schedule under the Group Insurance Scheme, outstanding loan amount was paid, subject to terms and conditions, contained in the Master Policy document, as issued to the Group Administrator. The house against, which the loan was raised was also got insured for 13 years with United India Insurance Company Limited Nakodar and amount of Rs.7,962/- in the cover note issued by United India Insurance Company Limited. The amount of premium has been shown as Rs.5,174/-. Difference of Rs.2788/- has not been debited in excess in account of Pooja Rani nor shown as such. Wife of the complainant expired on 29.01.2009 and complainant sent intimation about her death with death certificate to OP No.1 to claim outstanding loan amount from SBI Life Insurance, but no such information was ever received by the complainant in this regard that in the eventuality of death, the risk of the amount has been covered by SBI Life Insurance. The OPs have to take appropriate immediate steps for getting claim from the insurer, but to no effect. The complainant visited the OPs and came to know that amount of Rs. 8,56,605/- was still due outstanding in the account of the wife of the complainant. The complainant has, thus, filed the present complaint directing the OPs to clear the outstanding loan amount in the account of late Smt. Pooja Rani and to issue NOC to complainant. The complainant has also also prayed for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment and Rs.5500/- for costs of litigation, as well.

3.      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply by raising preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, hence the same is liable to be dismissed. It was admitted in the written reply by the OPs that complainant Inder Mohan Dogra along with his wife Pooja Rani (since deceased) applied for a loan of RS.8,70,000/- from OPs. At the time of taking of loan facility, Smt. Pooja Rani opted to obtain SBI Insurance policy by paying the insurance premium of Rs.63,901/- to Insurance Company. It was averred that after receipt of the loan, complainant was very irregular in the re-payment of the EMI's, despite repeated requests and reminders sent to her from the Bank. On 29.10.2009, a notice was issued to complainant by the Bank to deposit the overdue of his account, otherwise legal proceedings would be initated against her, but of no use. On account of regular default by the complainant, his account was classified, as NPA and a demand notice under Section 13(2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to the complainant on 26.10.2010 and in the said notice, it was clearly mentioned that, as on 30.09.2010, the total outstanding amount in the account of the complainant was Rs.10,39,362.00 and it was also mentioned to repay the dues of the Bank within 60 days of the notice, failure of  which, the proceedings to take possession of the secured assets would be initiated, as per law, but complainant failed to comply with this notice dated 26.10.2010 served by the Authorized Officer of the Bank, as such notice to take possession was issued by the Bank on 14.01.2011, whereby it was clearly mentioned that Bank would take the possession of the secured asset on 21.01.2011 at about 4.30 PM at site. It was further averred that when complainant has intimated the death of Smt. Pooja Rani, he was highly uncooperative with the authorized officer and the officials of the Bank, which was evident from the letter dated 03.01.2011 issued by the Bank to the complainant. It was further averred that on 03.02.2011, Chief Manager of the Bank and Mr. Sandeep Singh claim processor from the Insurance Company visited the house of the complainant for completing the claim formalities, but complainant was not available at home. Thereafter, he was contacted on phone by the said officials and he assured them to visit the Branch at 10.30 am on 04.02.2011, but he did not visit the Branch. Thereafter both of them again visited the house of the complainant, but the house was locked and when he was contacted on phone, complainant intimated them that he would visit the branch till 4.00 PM, but, in fact, he did not turn up. So allegations regarding lapse of the Bank for the delayed settlement of the claim are false and baseless. Delay in settlement in claim, if any was on the part of the complainant. It was further averred that later on, Insurance Company paid a sum of Rs.8,56,605/- to answering OP /Bank , which was received by the Bank on 15.06.2011, and same was duly adjusted in the loan account of the complainant and after receipt of the said amount, the total outstanding amount of the Bank towards the complainant was Rs.2,09,635/-. Rests of the averments of the complainant were controverted by the OPs and OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of the documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-3. As against it, OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Shrimant Jaywant Jadhav Chief Manager Union Bank of India/OPs Ex.OP-A along with copies of documents Ex.OP-1 to Ex.OP-14.  On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Jalandhar, dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 14.06.2012. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Jalandhar, the complainant now appellant has preferred this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as none has appeared on behalf of respondent during final arguments of this appeal. We have also examined the record of the case.

6.      Evidence is required to be adverted by us on the record for adjudication of this case. Ex.C-1 is affidavit of Inder Mohan Dogra complainant on the record. This affidavit is in support of the allegations of the complainant on oath, as pleaded in the complaint. Ex.C-2 is letter from OP No.2 to OP No.1 to the effect that basic sum assured is Rs.8,56,605.00 and net claim payable is Rs.8,56,605.00. It is further recorded in it that deposit of the aforesaid cheque/demand draft for encashment by the payee shall deemed to be an acceptance of the settlement amount offered by the insurer and shall discharge the insurance company of all liabilities. Ex.C-3 is account statement of Pooja Rai (since deceased).

7.      As against it, OPs relied upon affidavit of Shrimant Jaywant Jadhav working as Chief Manager Union Bank of India/OPs Ex.OP-A. Ex.OP-1 is the letter of sanction. Ex.OP-2 is application for Union Home loan by Pooja Rani moved to Bank/OP. Ex.OP-3 is insurance policy. Ex.OP-4 is terms and conditions of the policy. Ex.OP-5 is notice regarding recovery of the amount of Rs.95,946/- . Ex.OP-6 is reminder to initiate legal action for possessing the house, subject to loan, in case of failure to clear it. Ex.OP-7 is also letter addressed to complainant for the enforcement of Security Interest action and to take action U/s 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 and to pay a sum of Rs.10,39,362.00. Ex.OP-8 is notice sent to the complainant for taking possession of the house. Ex.OP-8-A is death certificate of Pooja Rani proving her death of death is 29.01.2009. We have also considered other documents Ex.OP-9 to Ex.OP-14 on the record.

8.      The District Forum has recorded observation that notice was issued to complainant to deposit the overdue amount of his account, otherwise, legal action would be initiated, but it carried no effect. It is in evidence of the OPs that account of the complainant was classified, as NPA and a demand notice under Section 13 (2) of the SARFAESI Act was issued to complainant on 26.10.2010 stating that on 30.09.2010 total outstanding amount in the account of the complainant was Rs.10,39,362.00. The District Forum observed that the attitude of the complainant was highly uncooperative and authorized officials and officers of the Bank and District Forum relied upon letter dated 03.01.2011 issued by the Bank to complainant in this regard to reach this conclusion. The District Forum relied upon affidavit of Chief Manager dated 03.02.2011 that Sandeep Singh Claim Processor of the Insurance Company also visited the house of the complainant for completing the claim formalities, but he was not available at that time. The District Forum further relied upon this affidavit of Chief Manager of the Bank in coming to the conclusion that delay in settlement of the claim, if any is on the part of the complainant and he is to blame himself. Undisputedly, Insurance Company has paid the amount of Rs.8,56,605/- to OP/Bank, which was received by the Bank on 15.06.2011 and same has been duly adjusted in the account of the complainant. The outstanding amount of loan thereafter is Rs.2,09,635/- from the complainant. The District Forum also referred to Ex.C-9 letter dated 03.03.2011 sent by the Bank to the complainant asking to submit the documents mentioned in it for the settlement of the insurance claim. The District Forum blamed the complainant for the delay and uncooperative attitude for which amount of Rs.2,09,635/- stood accumulated in his account, as overdue.

9.      From hearing the respective submissions of counsel for the parties and perusal of the record, we find that amount of Rs. 8,56,805/- has been issued by the Insurance Company to the Bank. It is evident from perusal of the insurance policy Ex.OP-3 that sum insured was of Rs.9,00,000/- and net payable amount by the insurer towards this loan was Rs.8,56,605/-, as is evident from Ex.C-2 on the record.  The amount of Rs.8,56,605/- has been released by the Insurance Company to complainant for the adjustment of the loan of Pooja Rani, for which this insurance policy was taken. There is no dispute in this case to this point. The dispute pertains to remaining amount of Rs. 2,09,635/- only. We are of this view that the terms and conditions of the Insurance are binding on the parties. The liability of the Insurance Company is fixed up to certain extent only not beyond that. The Insurance Company discharged its liability by releasing the amount of Rs.8,56,605/- towards the loan amount and this liability was up to this extent only. The above-referred amount is the accumulated interest mainly on account of delayed settlement of the claim with the Insurance Company. The complainant swore his affidavit that it is fault of the OPs, whereas the affidavit of Chief Manager Shrimant Jaywant Jadhav Ex.OP-A is on the record stating that the bank wrote letter to complainant to come and settle the claim, but complainant remained uncooperative at all stages to do the needful. The complainant has not completed the formalities, which led to the delay in the settlement of the claim, resulting into accumulation of the interest amount. It is further sworn in this affidavit that Mr. Sandeep Singh Claim Processor from the Insurance Company visited the house of the complainant to complete the claim formalities, but he was not available at home. Thereafter, complainant was contacted on phone on 04.02.2011 and  he  assured to visit the Bank on 04.02.2011, but he had not turned up thereat. The outstanding amount remained due on account of delayed settlement, which is especially on account of own attitude and conduct of the complainant. There was no need for the OP/Bank, to have written letter Ex.OP-6 to complainant, if the situation was not such. Thereafter, OPs served notice to complainant for invoking the provisions under Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 in this case, but that evoked no response. Even notice to take possession of secured asset was also issued to complainant subsequently. The District Forum has, thus, come to the correct conclusion after appreciation of the evidence on the record that after adjusting the insured amount of Rs.8,56,605/-, some more amount is due to Bank from the complainant. The complainant himself is responsible in giving intimation to Bank regarding death of Pooja Rani belatedly and thereby he did not cooperative with the Bank in submission of the necessary documents for getting insurance claim after completing the formality. Even, Insurance Company is not impleaded, as a party in this case by the complainant. We find that no such direction can be issued to Bank to clear the outstanding loan amount and to issue No Objection Certificate (NOC) in this case to the complainant.

10.    Consequently, we do not find any illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum for taking a different view therefrom. The order of the District Forum Jalandhar dated 14.06.2012 calls for no interference therein and same is hereby affirmed.

11.    As a result of our above discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and same is hereby dismissed.      

12.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 27.08.2015 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

13.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                        (HARCHARAN SINGH GURAM)

                                                                             MEMBER

 

September 2,      2015.                                                                 

(ravi)