STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, Plot No.144, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh 160 002 through its Branch Manager.

…Appellant/opposite party no.1

V e r s u s

1. Surinder Kaur wife of Late Sh.Jeevan Kumar, aged about 58 years, R/o H.No.344, Phase-4, Mohali, Punjab.

….Respondent No.1/complainant

2. State Bank of India, SCO 35, Phase-X, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali 160055 the Branch Manager.

2^nd Address:-

State Bank of India, SCO No.35, Opposite Verka Milk Booth, Phase X, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali 160055 through its Branch Manager.

3. State Bank of India, RACPC, SCO 99-107, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh 160052 through its Branch Head.

2^nd Address:-

RACPC, Sector Road, Sector 68, SAS Nagar, Mohali 160052

….Respondents No.2 and 3/OPs No.2 and 3

Present:-     Sh. Ranjeesh Malhotra, Advocate for the appellant.

                   Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the respondent no.1

                   Sh.Chandeep Singh, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3.

===============================================================

1. State Bank of India, SCO 35, Opposite Verka Milk Booth, Phase-X, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali 160055.
2. State Bank of India, RACPC, Sector 68, Mohali, Punjab

Appellants no.1 and 2 filing present appeal through Chief Manager, Maintenance, SBI RACPC, Mohali. 

…Appellants/opposite parties no.2 and 3

V e r s u s

1. Surinder Kaur wife of Late Sh.Jeevan Kumar, aged about 58 years, R/o H.No.344, Phase-4, Mohali, Punjab.

….Respondent No.1/complainant

2. SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, Plot No.144, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh 160 002 through its Branch Manager.

….Respondent No.1/opposite party no.1

Present:-     Sh. Chandeep Singh, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the respondent no.1

                   Sh., Ranjeesh Malhotra Advocate for respondents no.2.

BEFORE:

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT. MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER. MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER MR.PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER.

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                   These appeals have been filed by the appellants/opposite parties, as they are aggrieved of the order dated 17.05.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission, whereby consumer complaint bearing no.325 of 2020  filed by the respondent no.1/complainant was partly allowed as under:-

“…….13]      From the above discussion and findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice resorted to by the OPs is writ large. Therefore, the present complaint is allowed with direction to the Opposite Parties jointly & severally as under:-

a)  To credit the sum assured amount of Rs.48 lacs in the Home Loan Account No.38291177371  of the complainant as on the date of death of loanee Jeevan Kumar i.e. 18.5.2019 and thereafter work out the balance principal amount in the said Home Loan Account as on 19.5.2019;

b)  To deduct entire installments so paid by the complainant upto date in said Home Loan Account No.38291177371 from June, 2019 against the balance principal along with applicable interest arrived at on June, 2019, after deduction of sum assured amount, as directed above, and refund the balance excess amount, if any, to the complainant.

C)  To supply fresh/latest Account Statement to the complainant in respect of Home Loan Account No.38291177371 in question, showing the deduction of sum assured amount, as directed above, as well as balance principal amount along with interest arrived at in the said account as on June, 2019 and installments so paid by complainant upto date as well as refund, if any;

d) To pay an amount of Rs.One Lakh to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document