SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 2158

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
UNION BANK OF INDIA – Appellant
Versus
SMT. KAVITA BALJITSINGH CHAUDHARY – Respondent
SC/CB2/27/A/9/2019



Petitioner Advocates:ADV.S.G.CHAUBEY ,Respondent Advocate: ANIL SAWAL

##PAGE1##

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

CIRCUIT BENCH NAGPUR

FIRST APPEAL NO. SC/CB2/27/A/9/2019

UNION BANK OF INDIA

PRESENT ADDRESS - THROUGH ITS MANAGER, RAJESH PANDURANG GAWANDE

OFF.AT. N.H.COMPLEX, WEST HIGH COURT ROAD, NAGPUR,MAHARASHTRA.

SECRETARY, AMRAVATI MAHANAGARPALIKA KAMGAR SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA

MARYADIT AMRAVATI .

PRESENT ADDRESS - AT SHRIRAMSUPAR MARKET, RAJAPETH , AMRAVATI , TQ. AND

DIST AMRAVATI.,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Appellant(s)

Versus

SMT. KAVITA BALJITSINGH CHAUDHARY

PRESENT ADDRESS - R/O. ADIWASI LAYOUT, WADI NAKA,

NAGPURNAGPUR,MAHARASHTRA.

.......Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE MRS. KALYANI KAPSE , PRESIDING MEMBER

HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE , MEMBER

FOR THE APPELLANT:

ADV.NIRAJA CHOUBE

FOR THE RESPONDENT:

ANIL SAWAL (Advocate)

DATED: 04/02/2026

ORDER

PER MS.SHAILA WANDHARE, HON'BLE MEMBER

This is an appeal preferred by the original opposite party, Union Bank of

Indiathrough its Manager, being aggrieved by the orderpassed on 12/10/2018of the

learnedDistrict Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nagpur (for short as “learned

District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No.CC/737/2016, vide Section 15 of the

Consumer Protection Act 1986.

The parties of the appeal are hereinafter referred to by their original

##PAGE2##

nomenclature as complainant and opposite parties respectively for better

appreciation.

The facts emerge from the present appeal is that late Baljit Singh Chaudhary

was a consumer of the O.P. bank and holder of Savings/Loan Account

No.442402010907612. He had applied for a housing loan under the Union

Home Scheme on 10/05/2009 which was sanctioned on 05/07/2009 vide

Sanction Letter No.680/296 subject to specific terms and conditions duly

signed by him including a condition relating to insurance coverage for securing

the loan amount. The loan instalments and interest were regularly paid from

2009 till his sudden death on 29/07/2016. The complainant being widow of late

Baljit Singh Chaudhary unable to continue repayment. So, the complainant

approached the O.P. bank for settlement of the outstanding loan by invoking

the insurance cover allegedly mandated and facilitated by the O.P. as part of

the loan transaction. However, the O.P. denied the claim on the ground that

no insurance policy was taken for the loan and replied in a rude and evasive

manner. So, the complainant issued legal notices dated 16/08/2016 and

16/10/2016, but the O.P. failed to give any satisfactory response. So, the

complainant alleged that the O.P. involved for deficiency in service and unfair

conduct in relation to denial of insurance benefits and non-settlement of the

housing loan under the Union Home Scheme. Therefore, the complainant filed

consumer complaint against O.P. for directions of closure of the loan account

and issuance of No Objection Certificate along with compensation for mental

and physical suffering with costs of litigation.

The O.P. have resisted the claim before the learned District Forum and denied

the contention on the ground that the husband of the complainant had

independently obtained an insurance policy dated 25/08/2009 from United

India Insurance Company Ltd. which was not impleaded as a party to the

complaint and therefore the complaint suffered from non-joinder of a

necessary party. They contended that the deceased had taken a “UNI Home

Care Policy” bearing insurance period from 26/08/2009 to 25/08/2029. The

##PAGE3##

said policy did not provide any cover for death or permanent disability of the

insured, but was limited only to protection against specified perils such as fire,

storm, cyclone, flood, earthquake and other structural risks to the insured

property. They also contended that, in view of the express exclusions under

the said policy, no benefit towards liquidation or waiver of the housing loan

instalments could be claimed after the death of Baljit Singh Chaudhary. The

O.P. further submitted that the complainant had failed to produce any

document to show existence of a loan-linked life insurance or risk cover policy

for the loan amount of Rs.5,00,000/-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top