State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
N.Vanjimuthu,Dindigul 3 vs The Icici Bank Ltd., Rep., By Its Chief ... on 18 December, 2015
1
IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MADURAI BENCH
PRESENT : THIRU J. JAYARAM PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
THIRU M. MURUGESAN MEMBER
C.C.No.31/2012
THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2015
N. Vanjimuthu,
son of Nachimuthu Gounder,
Senthil Residecy,
No. 6/109-D, NVGB Theatre Road,
Nagal Nagar,
Dindigul - 624 003. Complainant
-Vs-
1. The ICICI Bank Limited,
represented by its Chief Executive Officer,
ICICI Bank Towers,
Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Mumbai - 400 051
2. The ICICI Bank Limited,
represented by its Regional Manager,
IA, Vijaya Arcade,
Ground Floor,
P.P. Chavadi,
Theni Road,
Madurai - 625 016
2
3. The ICICI Bank Limited,
represented by its Branch Manager,
RAPG Office,
First Floor,
2/2 Salai Road,
Dindigul - 625 001.
4. The ICICI Lombard General Insurance,
represented by its Chief Executive Officer,
Zenith House,
Keshavrao Khadye Marg,
Mahalakshmi,
Mumbai - 400 034
5. The Asset Reconstruction Co. India Ltd.,
Represented by its Chief Executive Officer,
Flat No. 1003, Mayuresh Chambers,
Plot No. 60, Sector - II,
CBD Belapur,
Navi Mumbai - 400 614
6. The Asset Reconstruction Co. India Ltd.,
Represented by its Authorized Officer,
Aircil Armsn
No. 1, 2nd Floor, Ceebros Centre,
No. 45, Montieth Road,
Egmore,
Chennai - 600 - 008 . Opposite Parties
Counsel for Complainant : Mr. V. Janakiramalu, Advocate.
Counsel for Opposite parties 1 to 3 : Exparte
Counsel for Opposite party- 4 : Mr.S. Suresh, Advocate.
Counsel for Opposite parties 5 & 6 : Mr. Pala. Ramasamy, Advocate.
This case coming before us for final hearing on 16.12.2015 and on
hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records,
this Commission made the following:
3
ORDER
THIRU.J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
1. The case of the complainant is as follows : -
The complainant's wife Late V. Natchathal approached the 3rd opposite party and obtained housing loan of Rs. 28,74,000/- by executing Loan cum Hypothication Agreement (No.LBDDL00001193667 dated 22-11-2005) and the complainant stood as guarantor. The loan dues were paid by the loan holder namely late V. Natchathal. The opposite parties 1 to 3 insured the above said home loan of Rs. 28,74,000/- with the 4th opposite party vide loan care certificate No. 4043/0000002/ICICI/HL/0024869 on 30-11-2005. The loan care policy covers period from 30-11-2005 to 29-11-2010. The 4th opposite party had collected the premium amount from the deceased Natchathal and registered her loan account number in the policy. The 4th opposite party had wrongly entered the guarantor's name Vanjimuthu in the column of the insured person. The 4th opposite party had issued the policy and the deceased Natchathal received and retained the same. The said Natchathal died on 13-05-2008 due to heart attack. Subsequent to the death the complainant submitted the claim form to the 4th opposite party through opposite parties 1 to 3 on 02-07-2008 claiming the outstanding loan principal amount of Rs. 27,48,907/- as per the policy. The 4th opposite party vide letter dated 22-08-2008 repudiated the claim holding that the policy is issued in favour of Vanjimuthu and not in the name of Mrs. Natchathal. The complainant issued lawyer's notice stating that 4 the mistake is due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 to 4 and called upon them to settle the claim but the opposite parties had chosen not to send any reply nor settled the claim. Hence the complaint.
2. The contentions of the 4th opposite party in the written version are that the policy issued by them was in the name of Vanjimuthu. The complainant did not care to intimate this opposite party regarding any discrepancy in the policy and had kept silent. As per the terms and conditions, the policy holder ought to have reverted back to the insurer in case of discrepancy in the policy within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. The complainant did not inform about the death of his wife immediately to this opposite party. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. There is no deficiency in service on their part and hence prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The contentions of the 5th and 6th opposite party in their written version are that the consumer complaint is not maintainable as against them as there are no allegations made against them in the complaint and the complainant has not sought any relief as against them.
4. The complainant, to establish their case, has filed proof affidavit with 18 documents and the same has been marked as Ex. A1 to A 18. The opposite party, to prove their case, has filed proof affidavit with 5 documents and the same have been marked as Ex. B-1 to B-5.
5
5. The points for consideration are : -
(1). Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint? (2) Whether the complainant is entitled to claim compensation from the opposite parties?
(3) If so, to what relief the complainant is entitled?
POINT : 1 & 2
6. Admittedly the complainant's wife Late V. Natchathal approached the 3rd opposite party and had obtained housing loan of Rs. 28,74,000/- by executing Loan cum Hypothication Agreement(No.LBDDL000001193667) dated 22-11-2005 and the complainant stood as guarantor and the loan dues were paid by the loan holder namely late V. Natchathal. There is no dispute regarding the insurance cover taken by the opposite parties 1 to 3 for the home loan of Rs. 28,74,000/- with the 4th opposite party vide loan care certificate No. 4043/0000002/ICICI/ HL/0024869 on 30-11-2005 and the loan care policy covers the period from 30-11-2005 to 29-11-2010. The bone of contention is that the insurance policy for the home loan has not been issued in the name of the borrower but in the name of the guarantor. The contention of the complainant is that the insurance policy for home loan was taken in the name of the borrower Mrs. Natchathal pertaining to the housing loan obtained by her with the opposite parties 1 to 3. Per contra the 4th opposite party has contended that the policy has been issued in the name of the complainant only 6 and if any discrepancy is noted the policy holder has to approach them within 15 days. The insurance policy issued by the 4th opposite party has been produced and marked as Exhibit A-9 by the complainant and on scrutiny of Exhibit A-9 it is evidenced that the Loan Account No. LBDDL00001193667 has been categorically mentioned. On conjoint reading of Ex.A-9 with Exhibits A-2 to A-8 it is evident that the loan account number mentioned in Ex.A-9 by the 4th opposite party in the insurance policy is that pertaining to the loan borrowed by deceased Mrs. Natchathal. The 4th opposite party would have definitely cross checked the loan account number, name of the borrower before issuing the policy as they have mentioned the loan account number in the policy. It is pertinent to point out here that the 4th opposite party had collected the premium amount from the deceased Natchathal and registered her loan account number in the policy. Further the 4th opposite party would not have blindly issued the policy without verifying the basic particulars and that too when the loan has been issued by the 1 to 3 opposite parties who are their sister institution. The act of issuing policy in the name of guarantor instead of borrower is definitely a shortcoming and imperfection in their services. In these circumstances we do not find any merit in the contention of the 4th opposite party for repudiating the claim for the reason that the policy stands in the name of the guarantor and not in the name of the deceased. It is due to the deficiency in service in the part of the 4th opposite party, the policy has been wrongly issued in the name of the guarantor instead of the borrower and for the deficient act of the 4th opposite party the consumer cannot be penalized. 7 The 4th opposite party has in their written version raised various reasons for repudiating the claim of the complainant. In fact the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the 4th opposite party vide letter dated 22-08-2008 which has been produced and marked as Exhibit A-16 by the complainant which reads as follows : -
" On processing of the above documents it is found that the policy is issued in favour of Mr. Vanji Muthu. As Mrs. Natchathal was not the insured under the captioned policy, the claim intimated vide your letter dated 02-07-2008 is not admissible "
On perusal of Ex. A-16 it is found that the claim of the complainant was repudiated only on the sole ground that the insurance policy in question stands in the name of Vanjimuthu and not Mrs. Natchathal and it being so, the other contentions now raised by the 4th opposite party are not sustainable. Considering the facts and circumstances we have no hesitation in holding that the act of the 4th opposite party amounts to gross deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to get the claim amount of Rs. 27,48,907/- from the 4th opposite party.
7. As far as the opposite parties 1 to 3 are concerned they have admittedly granted the housing loan and for the said loan they have taken the insurance cover with the 4th opposite party as they are of the same group of institutions. Being so we do not find any role on their part in issuing the insurance policy in question. In respect of opposite parties 5 and 6 no relief has 8 been sought by the complainant in the complaint as against them. The points are answered accordingly.
POINT No:3
8. As far as the claim of Rs. 5 lakhs by the complainant for the mental agony and pain suffered by the complainant due to non-settlement of the claim is concerned, the act of the 4th opposite party would have definitely caused severe mental agony and pain to the complainant. As far as the remedy for the deficiency in service is concerned the main component is compensation as to the actual loss or injury, due to the negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the service provider. Such a relief is available to the consumer by virtue of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, which provides as under : 14 (1) If, after the proceeding conducted under Section 13, the District Forum is satisfied that the goods complained against suffer from any of the defects specified in the complaint or that any of the allegations contained in the complaint about the services are proved, it shall issue an order to the opposite party directing him to do one or more of the following things, namely : - (d) to pay such amount as may be awarded by it as compensation to the consumer for any loss or injury suffered by the consumer, due to the negligence of the opposite party;
9. Now coming to the quantum of compensation, it would be appropriate for us to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ghaziabad Development vs Balbir Singh reported (2004) 5 SCC 65 wherein the court has held as follows:
9
"The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss. The provisions of the Consumer Protection Act enable a consumer to claim and empower the Commission to redress any injustice done. The Commission or the Forum is entitled to award not only value of goods or services but also to compensate a consumer for injustice suffered by him. The Commission/ Forum must determine that such sufferance is due to malafide or capricious or oppressive act. It can then determine the amount for which the authority is liable to compensate the consumer for his sufferance due to misfeasance in public office by the officers. Such compensation is for vindicating the strength of law."
We find the above judgement appropriate for us to arrive at the quantum of compensation. In view of the discussion made above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case we feel that award of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant would be just and reasonable and the point is answered accordingly.
1010 In the result, the complaint is allowed in part directing the 4th opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs. 27,48,907/- (Rupees twenty seven lakhs forty eight thousand and nine hundred and seven only) to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation viz., 22.08.2008 till the date of payment. The 4th opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as costs of this proceedings. The complaint is dismissed as against opposite parties 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6.
Time for compliance - two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-xxxxxxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxx
M. MURUGESAN J. JAYARAM
MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER
ANNEXURE
List of documents filed by the complainant :
Ex. A -1 29-11-2005 Home Loan Document
Ex. A -2 30-11-2005 Loan cheque disbursement note
Ex. A -3 --- Loan care certificate issued by the 4th op.
Ex. A -4 --- Letter of ICICI Home Finance
Ex. A -5 13-02-2006 Letter from ICICI Bank
Ex. A -6 25-05-2006 Letter from ICICI Bank
11
Ex. A -7 27-09-2006 Letter from ICICI Bank
Ex. A -8 27-07-2007 Letter from ICICI Bank
Ex. A-9 30-11-2005 Insurance Policy issued by 4th OP
Ex.A10 30-05-2008 Death certificate of Natchathal
Ex.A11 24-06-2008 Legal heir certificate of Nachathal
Ex.A12 06-06-2008 Doctor certificate for Natchathal
Ex.A13 --- No Objection Certificate
Ex.A14 03-07-2008 Claim form by complainant
Ex.A15 02-07-2008 Letter by complainant to 4th OP
ExA16 22-08-2008 Repudiation letter from 4th OP
Ex A17 02-07-2009 Lawyer notice
Ex.A18 07-07-2009 Acknowledgement card
List of documents filed by the opposite party
Ex. B-1 29-11-2004 Insurance Policy/Certificate
Ex. B-2 --- Explanation of cover
Ex. B-3 05-07-2004 Loan Care Certificate
Ex. B-4 --- Explanation of covers
Ex. B-5 22-08-2008 Repudiation letter sent by the 4th OP
Sd/-xxxxxxxxxx Sd/-xxxxxxxxxxx
M. MURUGESAN J. JAYARAM
MEMBER PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER