IMPORTANT POINT
Admission - After admitting the fact that she signed the relevant documents, the Complainant cannot make the allegation that she had not purchased the Insurance Policy.

ORDER

Since facts and the issue involved in both Revision Petitions are same, we dispose of them by a common order.

2. According to the Petitioner/Insurance Company, Revision Petition No.3221/2017 has been filed with a delay of 70 days. The Petitioner has, therefore, filed IA/15600/2017 an application for condonation of delay. As per report of the Registry, there is no delay in filing the Revision Petition. In the interest of justice, however, IA/15600/2017 is allowed and delay condoned.

3. Respondent No.1 in both cases is the Complainant. Opposite Party No.1 is the builder. Opposite Parties Nos. 2 to 4 are ICICI Bank Ltd. and its Branches. Opposite Parties Nos.5 & 6 are ICICI General Insurance Co. Ltd. and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. respectively. Opposite Party No.7 is the Commissioner, GHMC. Case of the Complainant is that she obtained a housing loan of Rs.26,83,300/- from Opposite Party No.2/ICICI Bank Ltd. Before sanctioning the loan, the Bank was required to verify the documents relating to the project of the builder. It was found that the builder was not having a valid construction plan and approved layout. The Complainant repaid the loan amount of Rs.5,09,010/- in instalments from May, 2008 to February, 2010. Thereafter, the Complainant could not pay the instalments as she lost her job. The Bank forcibly took possession of the Complainant’s apartment. The Commissioner, GHMC informed the Complainant that the builder had constructed the apartment against the Rules & Regulations and the builder was required to pay penalty of Rs.15,96,175/-. It was also informed that ICICI Bank, ICICI General Insurance Co. Ltd. and ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. also colluded with each other. The Complainant was surprised to know that the Bank had released an amount of Rs.26,83,300/- in favour of different names without her knowledge and consent. The Bank also transferred Rs.88,300/- in the name of ICICI General Insurance Co. Ltd. for purchase of Insurance Policy, without her instructions. The alleged Policy, inter-alia covered the risk of loss of job. On 11.06.2011, the Complainant filed a Complaint in the Court of IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District. The Complaint was referred to SHO, Miyapur for investigation. On 21.12.2011, the Police registered FIR. The Complainant also filed Consumer Complaint with the District Forum with the following prayer:—

“1. To direct the Opposite Parties No.1 to 6 to pay the compensation sum of Rs.9,99,789/- (Nine lakhs ninety nine thousand seven hundred eighty nine only) for the loss incurred to the complainant with 14% interest till the realization of the amount.

2. To pay the cost of the complaint.

3. To award any other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”

4. The builder and the Commissioner, GHMC were proceeded ex-parte. The Bank and the Insurance Company filed separate written statements. The Bank/Opposite Parties Nos.2 to 4 stated that they disbursed housing loan of Rs.26,83,300/- and the same was to be repaid by the Complainant in 240 monthly instalments of Rs.26,740/- each. The Complainant started defaulting in payment of instalments from December, 2008 onwards. The Bank sent several letters and reminders to the Complainant. The Bank also sent notice dated 18.09.2009 but the Complainant did not reply. They issued notice dated 17.05.2010 under SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Complainant, however, did not repay the dues. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under SARFAESI proceedings appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the property of the Complainant. The Advocate Commissioner took possession of the property on 16.12.2010 and handed over the same to the Bank. Thereafter, the Bank sold the property through auction. The Complainant also approached the Banking Ombudsman, who dismissed the Complaint. The Complainant supressed these facts in her Consumer Complaint.

5. The Insurance Com