IMPORTANT POINT
Bank is an institution which acts as per norms and rules.

ORDER

All these three revision petitions will be disposed of by the common order as the same arise out of a common order of the State Commission dated 21.8.2012 by which appeals of the petitioners were dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that three persons, namely, Amarjit Singh, Shamsher Singh and Vikramjeet Singh (hereinafter called as loanees) applied for sanction house loan. An amount of Rs.8,13,789/- was sanctioned to them. The sanctioned amount was to be disbursed in three installments of Rs.2,40,000/-, Rs.3,20,000/- and Rs.2,40,000/- and was to be credited in the joint account of the loanees. Two installments of sanctioned loan amount of Rs.2,40,000/- and Rs.3,20,000/- were disbursed to the loanees. The respondent also sanctioned Rs.13,789/- in their loan account as premium of SBI insurance policy which was calculated on the basis of youngest loanee. At the time when the loan was sanctioned the premium was calculated on the total amount of Rs.8,13,789/-, means that it also calculated the amount sanctioned as a premium of SBI insurance policy. One of the loanee i.e. Vikramjit Singh, the youngest among the loanee, expired on 13.1.2009 during the loan repayment period. As per the terms & conditions of the loan sanctioned, the contention of the loanees was that the balance EMI had become payable by the insurance company. The EMI which was fixed @ Rs.10,257/- was payable in 168 monthly installments. The claim of this effect was filed with the respondent but the respondent rejected the claim vide their letter dated 20.8.2009.

3. Aggrieved by it, the LRs of the deceased Vikramjit Singh filed complaint being CC/278/2009 and the remaining two loanees filed C/524/2010.

4. The District Forum vide order dated 31.3.2010 in CC/278/2009 issued following directions: -

“i) Make reverse entry of Rs.13,789/-.

ii) The amount of EMI received by the opposite parties on account of this account so far is directed to be credited to the account of the loanees.

iii) Next EMI should be rescheduled on the house/building loan of the loanees as per the disbursed loan amount.

The compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned.”

5. Vide order dated 6.2.2010 CC/524/2010 was dismissed. Three appeals by the complainants and the respondent were field before the State Commission. All the three appeals were dismissed by the State Commission vide the impugned order. The complainants by way of these three revision petitions have impugned the said order.

6. The claim of the loanees and the LRs of the deceased loanee in their claim petition was that at the time when the loan was sanctioned and they filed all the relevant documents, they had also signed the proposal form and on the basis of which the insurance premium amount was calculated @ Rs.13,789/- and therefore, the repudiation letter whereby their claim was rejected by the respondent was illegal and this amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the respondent because once the proposal form has been filled by them and the premium has also been sanctioned by them, it was their duty either to deposit the said amount with SBI life insurance so that the policy could be obtained or to release the said money to the loanees so that they could pay the premium for buying the SBI insurance policy. It is submitted that since it has not been done, it amounts to deficiency in service and hence there is a patent illegality in the impugned order. It is submitted that the impugned order is based on presumptions and assumptions. It is submitted that there is no evidence on record to substantiate the contention of the respondent that the proposal form was not filled at the time of sanction of the loan and that the loanees were asked several times to come and sign the proposal form by the respondent, on record. It is submitted that despite the fact that no evidence had been