Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
D.K. Jain, President, Vinay Kumar, Member, Mrs. M. Shreesha, Member
State Bank of India —Petitioner
versus
Narinder Kaur & Anr. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.2794 of 2010
(Against the Order dated 25/05/2010 in Appeal No. 453/2009 of the State Commission West Bengal)
Decided on 28.5.2015
For the Petitioner:Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Asok Chattopadhyay, Mr. Rakesh Malhotra, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Bank has to discharge its contractual obligations while disbursing loan amount.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Banking—Housing loan—Deduction of one time premium for insurance cover—Only contention raised on question of insurance is that failure was on part of late husband of complainant in appearing for medical check-up as advised by SBI Life—This is a contention which is contrary to evidence on record of Fora below—There was nothing to show that OP-1 had communicated these requirements to borrower—Attempt at justification of recovery proceedings in revision petition amounts to ignoring main findings of Fora below—Under letter of sanction, necessary documents for this were to be executed before disbursal of loan and premium was to be credited to insurer—On both counts Bank had failed to discharge its obligation—Punitive cost of Rs.2 Lakhs awarded in addition to award of State Commission. (Paras 8, 13, 15 and 16)
Result : Revision Petition allowed.
The impugned order was passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA/453/2009. Three different Revision Petitions have been filed against this order, two by OP-2/SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd and one by OP-1/State Bank Of India. For this reason, all three were listed for consideration together.
2. When the matter came up for consideration on 6.5.2015, this Commission disposed of two Revision Petitions, both filed by OP-2/SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd., with the following order:-
“Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, namely, SBI Life Insurance Co. Ltd., states that having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Insurance Company has decided not to press both the Revision Petitions and they will comply with the directions issued by the State Commission.
Accordingly, both the Revision Petitions are dismissed as not pressed. No costs.
Vide order dated 07.09.2010 in Revision Petition No.2794 of 2010, the operation of the impugned order was stayed, subject to deposit of 50% of the awarded amount along with accrued interest thereon by the Insurance Company before the District Forum within four weeks thereof. Subsequently, vide order dated 10.02.2014 the Complainant was permitted to withdraw the said amount on her furnishing a solvent surety to the satisfaction of the President of the District Forum. It is stated that the said amount has since been released to the Complainant. Since the Revision Petitions have been dismissed as not pressed, the surety furnished by the Complainant in terms of the said order shall stand discharged.
Learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company very fairly states that the balance amount in terms of the impugned order shall be paid to the Complainant within two weeks from today by means of a banker’s cheque/demand draft. It is ordered accordingly.”
3. In the absence of a similar concession from OP-1/State Bank of India, its Petition RP/2794/2010 has been heard separately and is taken up for consideration and decision in this order. Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocate has been heard on behalf of the State Bank of India and Mr. Asok Chattopadhya, Advocate on behalf of the Complainant/Ms. Narinder Kaur. We have also carefully considered the records filed by the two sides.
4. The matter arose from a housing loan of Rs.11.8 lakhs sanctioned by the OP-1/State Bank of India on 21.9.2004. It is specifically alleged in paras 4 and 5 of the Complaint Petition, filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Burdwan District, that the Complainant had deposited four life insurance policies with total endowment sum of Rs.8 lakhs. Yet, they were allegedly, ‘compelled’ by the Bank to take another life insurance policy for Rs.11.8 lakhs, from OP-2/SBI Life Insurance Company Ltd. Accordingly, simultaneously with sanction of the housing loan, OP-1/SBI deducted a sum of Rs.49980/- on 21.9.2004 itself, towards one time premium for insurance cover from OP-2.
5. The District Forum dismissed the complaint qua OP-2/SBI Life Insurance Company and allowed the same against OP-1/SBI. Significantly, it has observed that it had asked the counsel for State Bank of India whether the requirements of supply of medical questionnaire as sought by SBI Life in its letter of 25.1.2005 had been intimated to Gurjeet Singh by the SBI. Counsel accepted before the District Forum that there was no document to show that Gurjeet Singh was so intimated by the OP-1/SBI. It was only stated that he was verbally intimated about it.
6. The State Commission has held both OPs responsible observing that there was adequate material on record to determine their liability. It, therefore, disagreed with the District Forum to the extent of exoneration of OP-2/SBI Life. It held OP-1 and OP-2 both equally liable and awarded compensation of Rs.5.00 Lakhs to be paid by each.
7. As noted earlier in this order, OP-2/SBI Life has already accepted its liability in the matter. We therefore, find no need t
