State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs 1.Sri. Ameshetti Kumara Swamy on 8 September, 2022
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.133 OF 2018
AGAINST ORDERSIN CC.NO,.09 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT
CONSUMER COMMISSION, WARANGAL.
Between:
State bank of Inida
(Erstwhile State bank of Hyderabad)
Main Branch, Nakkalagutta,
Hanamkonda, Warangal,
Represented by Its Branch Manager
Sri.Sajan Lal Tak.
Appellant/Opposite Party No.1
And
1. Sri. Aemeshetti Kumara Swamy,
S/o. Sri. Sammaiah, Age: 46 years,
Occ: Assistant Sub-Inspector,
R/o. 2-4-1133/1, Gandhi Nagar,
Gokul Nagar, Hanamkonda,
Warangal District 506001
...Respondent/Complainant
2. SBI Life Insurance Co., Limited
S.V.N. Road, Warangal,
R/b. It's Branch Manager.
(Respondent/OP2 is only eo-nominee Party)
Respondent/Opposite Party No.2
Counsel for the Appellant/Opp.Party No.1 :M/s. Ch.T.Sreerama Murthy
S A-naveonliatar.
Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant:
Counsel for the Respondent/Opp.Party No.2: Mr.Srinivas Karra
QUORUM: SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL, HON'BLE PRESIDENT
HON'BLE SMT MEENA RAMANATHAN, LADY MEMBER
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY ONE ***k*** Order
1. This is an appeal filed U/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying this Commission to set aside the orders passed in CC.No. 09 of 2016, dt.17.10.2017, on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Warangal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are relerred to as arrayed in the complaint.
2is an employee compiaint are that, the Complainant . The brief facts of the of Police and approached Opposite Working as Assistance Sub-lnspector with the loan. After complying Party No. 1 bank for obtaining Home 30-6- 9,46,000/- on he was sanctioned loan amount of RS.
Tequirements,
sanction letter he
was
2014. It is his submission that on receipt of loan
Insurance over
for Home Loan
utterly shocked to find that he
had opted
in the police department
76,000/- He claims that all the employees
lorRs. levied against his
will be covered with "Aarogya Bhadratha" and this was
vide letter
wish and requirements. He conveyed this to the opposite parties dated: 02.07.2014, but there was no response forth coming No. 1 bank seeking refund of
4. The complainant approached opposite party this amount and that it would be adjusted to his loan account or personal account. He once again approached opposite party No.1 bank for sanction of personal loans under SBH Home Cash Scheme an amount of Rs.
37,000/- was once again being deducted towards SBI life.
5. As a matter of fact, the sums of Rs. 76,000/- and Rs. 37,000/- were debited from his loan account on two occasions are charged with interest and he has been compelled to pay the same though no requisition has been made by him. After issuance of legal notice on 05.10.2015 a sum of Rs.
35,493 was refunded to his loan account without furnishing any details except that the medical examination was not complied with. He claims he has not been furnished with any copy of the policy obtained by opposite party.No.1. from opposite party.No.2. He has find the present complaint for there deficiency and prays for refund of amount along with interest and compensation.
6. The Opposite party No.l submitted their Written Version denying the allegations made by the complainant. The Insurance Coverage is in respect of the Housing Loan and to make good any loss in the event of death of the person as mentioned in the policy. At the request of the complainant additional loan limit of Rs. 76,000/- was sanctioned for the payment of premium of Rs.15,200/- payable in 5 years to the Insurance Company/ Opposite Party No.2. The complainant is at liberty to cancel the policy with the opposite party No.2 if he wished to do so and also seek refund of excess premium paid if any and close the loan amount of Rs. 76,000/- by repayingg the balance amount of Rs. 28,232 along with interest till thc date ol payment.
. The opposite party No.2 iled their Written Version submitting that in a group insurance Contract, the master policy holder is the holder and the TISk cover is on the eligible are individuals/members. The members of the policy bound by the terms and conditions. Of the master policy. the case of the compliant is regarding deduction of amount towards premium under Lile- Rinn Raksha Group Insurance Scheme. This opposite party had receiveda proposal bearing No. 7005497782 dated: 07.08.2015 and a deposit of Rs. 35,493/- Vide Cheque bearing No. 203785. However due to non submission of medical reports by the complainant proposal deposit amount was refunded.
8. The Complainant has further alleged in his complaint regarding a deduction of Rs. 76,000/- towards the premium to his loan account. This opposite party is not aware of the alleged deduction of Rs. 76,000/- or Rs. 36,000/-. They are not preview to what transpired between the complainant and opposite party No.l and cannot be held response for the actions of opposite party No.1. It is specifically submitted that the Insurance Cover is not automatic and was granted at the option of the complainant. Therefore the complainant has no locus standi to complain against this opposite party and they pray dismissal of the complaint.
9. Before the District Forum, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and Ex.Al to All marked on his behalf. Evidence affidavit of Opposite Parties filed. Ex.B1 to B11 marked on their behalf.
10. The District Forum after hearing both sides and considering the material on record allowed the complaint as follows:
1. The opposite party No.l is hereby directed adjust to the SBI Life Insurance premium amount of Rs. 76,000/- as paid on behalf of complainant to opposite party No.2 towards house loan.
2. To take back the cheque No. 309527 (Ex.A-2) issued in favour of complainant loan account by opposite party No.2 iand same may be adjusted to personal loan account of complainant by opposite party No. 1.
T h e opponite partien ore directed to deponit in thin Forum a u Rs.10,000/- (R»Ten thousand only} towurdn mental ugony unluling cOsts.
11 ARgrieved by the above uricd orders, the appellant/opponite party No.I preferred this appeal with the following grounds The Forum below failed to note that thc st respondent/Complainant is nota luyman, but an Assistant Sub lnspector of Police who can understand the terns of the loan. The Forum basically erred in not observing the urrungenent letter where in it is specifically mentioned Insurance Covcr is optional The Forum failed to consider that opposite party No.2 is a separate entity and not a part of opposite party No. l the appellant hercin. The Forum failed to note that the relationship of the complainant and opposite party No.1/appellant is that of creditor and debtor and there cannot be any deficicncy in services on the party of opposite party No. 1.
12 The Complainant availed a Home Loan
opposite party fron
No.1/Appellant bank on 03.06.2014 for a sum of Rs. 9,46,000/- vide exhibit A6. A careful perusal of this exhibit reveals that the sanctioned amount is inclusive of SBI Life Insurance of Rs.
This letter is very explicit 76,000/-.
and the complainant has signed this document and therefore he cannot plead ignorance claiming that he was unaware of the loan sanction terms and conditions, and that it was deducted without his knowledge. He had the choice to opt out of the arrangement before signing it.
13. Home Loan Insurance is a plan that covers a borrowers outstanding loan at liberty to hedge the risk of loss in case he/she dies during the loan repayment term. However the borrower needs to know that it is not mandatory to purchase Home Loan Protection plans to avail Home Loan.
14. In the instant case, the complainant was provided with the loan sanctioned letter and the very first line is emphatic in that the loan amount is inclusive of the premium amount for 5 years. The complainant should 5 have taken the stand at that point of time instead he waited till 05.10.2015- i.e., almost after 1 % years to object to this supposedly unilateral action of the opposite party No.1 and is now seeking refund.
In his complainant he claims to have addressed the opposite party
15. No.1/Appellant a letter on 02.07.2014 but this is not supported by any material evidence. He has also taken an additional loan from opposite party supported by exhibit A3. Even at No.1/Appellant on 30.07.2015 and this is SBI Life Premium of this juncture he did not protest for the inclusion of has "Home Cash" exhibit Ex.A3 Rs.37,000/-. This arrangement letter SBH been signed by him.
returned to him
16. The reason an amount of Rs. 35,493 was only vide exhibit Al on 12.10.2015 was because he did not qualify for the deducted towards the medical examination. The amount of Rs. 1,507 was SBI "Life-Rinn Raksha" Group credit loan plans process fee. A perusal of the 11.2.1 which is reproduced file vide exhibit B6, has the following clause below ie., the master Where the scheme is compulsory in nature, you policy holder have 30 days from the date of the receipt of this policy document to review its terms and conditions. f you are not can return the policy stating the reasons for objection.
satisfied, you
has 30
Where the scheme is voluntary nature, the insured member
Insurance (COI) to
days from the date of receipt of Certificate of
review the terms and conditions of the insurance cover. f not
satisfied, he/she can return the Certificate of Insurance stating the
holder.
reasons for objection through you i.e., the master poBicy
11.2.2. We will then refund an amount equal to:
-Premium taxes and
-Less proportionate risk premium and proportionate Cess
-Less stamp duty
-Less medical expenses, if any.
17. The impugned order erred in not considering the exhibits a proper perspective and needlessly granted the relief to the respondent/complainant.
The cheque sent to the complainant vide Ex.Al was not enchased by him. His failure to do so cannot be compensated by the Respondent/Opposite Party No.2. We further direct Respondent No.2/Opposite party No.2 to revalidate the cheque and return it to the respondent No.1/complainant. The judgment of the District orum did not consider the loan arrangement letter and we tind no material irregularities on the part of the Appellant/Opposite Party No.l. The absence of reasons in the impugned order renders it un reasonable and cannot be sustained.
18. In the result the appeal is allowed. Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 is directed to revalidate the cheque (Ex.A1) favouring the Respondent No.1/Complainant. Time for compliance ig six weeks. The appellant is entitled to withdraw the statutory amount lying to the credit of this appeal along with interest accrued thereon.