IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH OF THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MADURAI.

Present: THIRU. S.KARUPPIAH, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER C.C.No.19/2016 Date of complaint filed : 22.08.2016 Date of orders pronounced : 17.05.2024 J.Gnanamani, S/o S.Jesuraj, Sengulam Village, Kalayarkovil Taluk, Sivagangai District. Complainant -Vs-

1. The State Bank of India, Rep.by its Manager, No.1, Weekly Market Road, Sivagangai Town, Sivagangai District.

2. The SBI Life Insurance Corporation, Rep.by its Manager, Karaikudi, Sivagangai District. Opposite Parties Counsel for Complainant : Mr.G.Ghouse Khathiri, Advocate.

Counsel for Opposite Party-1 : M/s.T.Senthilkumar, Advocate.

Counsel for Opposite Party-2 : M/s.A.Anbalakan, Advocate.

This complaint came before me for final hearing on 15.05.2024 and upon perusing the material records this Commission made the following:-

ORDER

THIRU.S.KARUPPIAH,PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER (Dictated in Open Court).

1. The complainant’s case : The complainant’s wife Meenal availed a bank loan to purchase the house property from the first opposite party/State Bank of India. Subsequently the above said Meenal executed a registered mortgage deed in acknowledgement of deposit of title deeds. At the time of sanctioning loan the first opposite party/ State Bank of India deducted premium from the loan amount as well as added premium amount to the loan. The obtained an insurance policy from the second opposite party/SBI Life Insurance Corporation. Unfortunately on 22.06.2015 the complainant’s wife Meenal was expired. But the bank demanded the loan amount from the complainant. The complainant requested the bank to adjust the remaining loan amount from the insurance amount they failed to do so. Hence he filed this consumer complaint seeking to direct the opposite parties to adjust the insurance amount to the loan amount which came to Rs.28,34,413/- on 07.04.2016. Further the opposite parties to issue a No Due Certificate and to return the deposit of title deeds to the complainant and claiming Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and also to pay Rs.25,000/- as cost of the proceedings.

2. The opposite parties separately filed their written version contended that the loan was borrowed by the Meenal but one Sureshkumar was also a Co-obligant. The insurance was obtained only for the above said SureshKumar and no insurance was obtained in favour of the above said Meenal. So there is no question of paying any insurance amount and there is no question of any deficiency on their part and requested this Commission to dismiss the complaint.

3. In this complaint, the complainant was examined as PW1 by filing proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to Ex.A9 were marked. On the side of the first opposite party proof affidavit of RW1 filed and Exhibits B1 to B6 were marked and the second opposite party proof affidavit of RW2 filed and Exhibits B7 to B7 were marked.

4. In this case the complainant side filed written arguments and their oral arguments were also heard. The first opposite party did not file their written arguments and no oral arguments was made. The second opposite party filed their written arguments made an endorsement to treat his written arguments as their oral arguments.

5. It is the submission of the complainant that only his wife Meenal borrowed the loan and executed a registered mortgage deed. To prove he filed Ex.A1 mortgage deed. It is his contention that at the time of availing home loan the insurance premium was also added to the loan amount and it is deducted from the loan account of the complainant’s wife. When his wife was expired as evidenced from Exhibits-A3, A4 & A5, he thought the loan must be adjusted with the insurance amount. The learned counsel further submitted, contrary to his expectation and to the surprise of the complainant he received a notice demanding the complainant to pay the loan amount. So he requested this Commission to set off the insurance amount towards loan amount and adjust the sa