STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION U.T., CHANDIGARH [ADDITIONAL BENCH]

Appeal No. : 135 of 2024 Date of Institution : 04.04.2024 Date of Decision : 03.10.2025 Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited through its authorized signatory.

Registered Office:- 2nd Floor, Plot No.#C-12, G-Block, BKC, Bandra (E), Mumbai - 4000051.

Branch Office:- SCO No.153-154-155, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160017.

Now the Branch Office:- SCO No.141-142, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh – 160017.

….Appellant/Opposite Party No.1 Versus

1] Rajni Garg wife of Late Shri Pardeep Garg, Resident of House No.20/1, Sector 28-A, Chandigarh, U.T.

….Respondent/Complainant

2] M/s L & T Housing Finance Limited, through its M.D and Director.

Registered Office: Brindavan, Plot No.177, Vidya Nagar Marg, Kalina, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400098.

Branch Office: 174, Dakshin Marg, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh-160002.

3] Sh. Rajesh Kushwaha son of Brighu Nath Kushwaha resident of House No.100, Gurjiwan Vihar, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar.

….Respondents/Opposite Parties No.3 & 2.

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT SH. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER ARGUED BY :-

Sh. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate for the appellant – on Video Conferencing. Sh. Jatin Bansal, Advocate (on video conferencing) alongwith Ms. Prabhjot Kaur, Advocate for respondent No.1/complainant.

Sh. Gaurav Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.

None for respondent No.3.

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT The instant appeal has been filed by opposite party No.1 - Kotak Mahindra Life Insurance Company Limited (appellant herein) for setting aside order dated 05.02.2024 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as ‘District Commission’) vide which, Consumer Complaint bearing No.528 of 2021 filed by the complainant – Rajni Garg (respondent No.1 herein) has been partly allowed against opposite party No.1/appellant by granting following relief:-

“4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP-1 is directed as under :-

i. to pay ₹79,90,953/- to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 24.4.2021 onwards.

ii. to pay ₹20,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;

iii. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by OP-1 within forty five days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the payable amounts, mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above, shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(iii) above.”

However, the complaint against opposite parties No.2 & 3 has been dismissed by the District Commission finding no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.

2] In brief, the case of respondent No.1/complainant before the District Commission, was that her husband namely Sh. Pardeep Garg had availed home loan of ₹77,40,000/- from opposite party No.3, by mortgaging his only residential house as he was in financial distress. In the month of June-July 2019, opposite party No.2, marketing and sales manager of opposite party No.3, allured Sh. Pardeep Garg to get himself insured from opposite party No.1/insurer so that the loan sanctioned in his favour be secured. As such, Sh. Pardeep Garg, Deceased Life Assured (in short “DLA”) got the loan insured from opposite party No.1. As per the policy cover, Annexure C-3, the sum assured was ₹79,90,593/-. Even at that time, DLA had disclosed to opposite party No.2 that he was suffering from kidney disease but it had assured that the same would not be any hindrance for availing policy benefit. In the month of October, 2020, the DLA fell ill and he was diagnosed with COVID-19 and was admitted in PGI, Chandigarh on 26.10.2020, where he died on 2.11.2020. Thereafter, the complain