Delhi District Court
Promila Lamba vs Hdfc Bank Limited on 24 January, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. VINOD KUMAR MEENA,
DISTRICT JUDGE-10 (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Civ DJ No. 613374/2016
CNR No.DLWT01-006097-2016
Smt. Promila Lamba,
W/o Late Sh. Satish Lamba,
R/o 9/36, Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi-15 ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
(1) HDFC Bank Ltd.,
H-37, First Floor,
Near Sanatan Dharam Mandir,
Main Road, Bali Nagar, Delhi-110015
(2) HDFC Standard Life Insurance Limited,
101-102 1st Floor, Aditya Complex,
Hargovind Enclave, Karkardooma Vikas Marg,
Community Center,
Near Karkardooma Court,
Shahdra, Delhi-110092 ....Defendants
SUIT FOR RECOVERY, PERMANENT AND MANDATORY
INJUNCTION
Date of institution of case : 29.08.2016
Reserved for judgment : 19.01.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 24.01.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This court is rendering the present judgment to adjudicate the suit VINOD KUMAR bearing Civ DJ No.613374/2016 which was filed by Sh. Promila Lamba MEENA Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR MEENA Civ DJ No.613374/2016 Date: 2026.01.24 Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 1 of 32 16:32:40 +0530 (hereinafter to be referred as 'plaintiff') on 29.08.2016 against HDFC Bank Ltd. and HDFC Standard Life Insurance Limited (hereinafter to be referred as 'defendants') for recovery, permanent and mandatory injunction.
PLEADINGS OF PLAINTIFF
2. It is the case of the plaintiff that husband of the plaintiff namely Sh. Satish Lamba applied for a commercial vehicle loan with defendant no.1 for purchase of a Commercial Tanker, which was duly sanctioned by the defendant no.1 bank, however, at the time of completion of formalities, relationship Manager of defendant no.1 namely Mr. Prakash Sinha informed the husband of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 had taken a HDFC Life Group Credit Protect Insurance Policy (hereinafter to be referred as 'the group insurance policy') from defendant no.2 to insure its creditors. It is further pleaded that Mr. Prakash Sinha, on behalf of defendant no.1, further intimated husband of plaintiff that only a one time premium of Rs.1,70,000/- had to be paid by him and in the case of death of insured person, the defendant no.2 should not only pay the entire balance loan amount but also refund the loan installments already paid to the bank. It is further pleaded that on the assurance of officials of defendant no.1, husband of the plaintiff gave his assent for his enrollment/membership in the said group insurance policy and after completition of formalities one time premium of Rs.1,70,000/- was debited from loan account of husband of plaintiff. It is further pleaded that husband of the plaintiff kept on paying the monthly installments towards repayment of loan till March 2016, however, on 31.03.2016, husband of plaintiff expired. It is further pleaded that a written VINOD KUMAR intimation in this regard was given to both the defendants and plaintiff MEENA Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR MEENA Civ DJ No.613374/2016 Date: 2026.01.24 16:32:51 +0530 Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 2 of 32 followed up the matter with officials of defendant no.2 and it was finally intimated by officials of defendant no.2 through letter dated 20.05.2016 that Mr. Satish Lamba (husband of plaintiff) had not undergone medical check- up as requested on 20.09.2015, as a result no policy was issued. It is further pleaded that husband of the plaintiff duly fulfilled all the formalities, as asked by defendants and paid the one time premium way back in May 2015 and none of defendants took any steps to complete alleged short comings nor cancelled the policy nor refunded the one time premium, during the lifetime of husband of plaintiff and defendants are coming up with lame excuses just to harass the plaintiff/claimant. It is further pleaded that a legal notice dated 02.07.2016 was issued upon defendants thereby calling upon defendants to refund the amount of Rs.7,64,998/- (value of total installments paid till date of death of husband of plaintiff.) and for liquidation of remaining loan amount from sum assured, however, no action was taken by or on behalf of defendants. Hence, the present suit was filed for recovery of Rs.7,64,998/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest @ 24% per annum and for recovery of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony alongwith permanent and mandatory injunction. Later on, the amount of claim was amended through an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which was allowed vide order dated 30.05.2022 and plaintiff sought amended claim of Rs.27,64,770/- instead of Rs.7,64,998/-.
PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANT NO.1
3. The defendant no.1 contested the suit by filing a separate written VINOD statement thereby refuting all the allegations. The defendant no.1 KUMAR MEENA categorically pleaded that present suit has been filed on the basis of false Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR MEENA Date: 2026.01.24 16:32:58 +0530 Civ DJ No.613374/2016 Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 3 of 32 and concocted facts and with sole intention to harass defendant no.1. It is further pleaded by the defendant no.1 that suit per se is bad on the ground of non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. It is further pleaded that role and responsibility of defendant no.1 was to sanction and disburse the loan and same was admittedly done by defendant no.1 and the grievance with regard to claim of plaintiff due to death of her husband is not within the domain of defendant no.1 and the said grievance can only be dealt with by defendant no.2. It is also pleaded that husband of the plaintiff approached defendant no.1 for availing commercial vehicle loan, which was duly sanctioned. It is also pleaded that at the request of husband of plaintiff for securing commercial vehicle loan, defendant no.1 sanctioned the insurance premium and the said insurance premium was disbursed in the account of defendant no.2 and issuance of group insurance policy and subsequent sanctioning of insurance claim is within the domain of defendant no.2. It is further pleaded that husband of the plaintiff had not undergone medical check-up, as requested by defendant no.2 on 21.09.2015 and as a result of which the policy was not issued. It is further pleaded that the said insurance premium had been adjusted in the loan account. It is finally pleaded that suit of plaintiff qua defendant no.1 be dismissed.
PLEADINGS OF DEFENDANT NO.2
4. The defendant no.2 contested the suit by filing a separate written statement thereby refuting all the allegations with respect to defendant no.2. The defendant no.2 categorically pleaded that defendant no.1 has HDFC Life Group Credit Protect Insurance policy with defendant no.2 for its VINOD customers qua loans given by it to its customers, as same is beneficial for KUMAR MEENA Digitally signed by VINOD Civ DJ No.613374/2016 KUMAR MEENA Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 4 of 32 Date: 2026.01.24 16:33:06 +0530 both the bank as well as to the customer, in as much as, in case of any untoward event, the outstanding balance loan amount, if any, payable by customer to the bank will be paid by the insurance company (defendant no.2) to the bank. It is also pleaded that defendant no.1 is the master policy holder and its customers, who want to secure their loan amount by way of insurance, would become members of said group insurance policy taken by defendant no.1. It is also pleaded that in the present case, while advancing the impugned loan, the husband of the plaintiff opted for said group insurance to safeguard payment of said loan in case of an untoward event and an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was deducted by defendant no.1 and paid to defendant no.2 from the loan account. It is further pleaded that towards the premium, proposal no.PP000069 (member no.81281667) of said group insurance policy in respect of late husband of plaintiff was sent for acceptance and issuance of policy to the late husband of plaintiff. It is also pleaded that the said group insurance policy was to be issued to the late husband of plaintiff after his medical checkup for which a telephonic call was made on 21.09.2015 and after said telephonic conversation, late husband of plaintiff confirmed to attend medical checkup on 25.09.2015, however, he had not appeared for said medical checkup fixed at Apollo Clinic. It is further pleaded that as late husband of plaintiff had not appeared for medical checkup, the said premium of Rs.1,70,000/- was returned by defendant no.2 to defendant no.1 on 29.09.2015. It is finally contended that upon the said return of premium amount on 29.09.2015, defendant no.2 had no liability towards plaintiff. It is finally pleaded that suit of plaintiff qua VINOD defendant no.2 be dismissed. KUMAR MEENA Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR MEENA Date: 2026.01.24 Civ DJ No.613374/2016 16:33:14 +0530 Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 5 of 32 ISSUES
5. After the completion of pleadings, following issues were framed on 02.11.2021:-
(i) Whether Sh. Satish Lamba deceased husband of plaintiff had not undergone medicals for issuance of HDFC Life Group Credit Protect Policy vide proposal no.PP000069? OPD-2
(ii) Whether amount of premium of Rs.1,70,000/- received by defendant no.1 and transfer to defendant no.2 was returned on 29.09.2015? OPD-2
(iii) Whether the husband of the plaintiff defaulted in payment of EMIs towards loan financed by defendant no.1? OPD-1
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree, as prayed? OPP
(v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest, if yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP
(vi) Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE
6. In support of her case, plaintiff has examined herself as PW-1 and through her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A, she relied upon and exhibited following documents:
(i) Photocopy of the voter card of plaintiff as Ex.PW1/1 (OSR);
(ii) Photocopy of the loan agreement between Late Husband of the plaitniff and defendant no.1 as Mark-A;
(iii) The original repayment schedule as Ex. PW1/2;
(iv) Computer Print out of HDFC Life Credit Protect Insurance Plan as Mark-B;
VINOD
(v) The original Screen report of vehicle purchased as Ex.PW1/3; KUMAR
MEENA
Digitally signed
by VINOD
Civ DJ No.613374/2016 KUMAR MEENA
Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 6 of 32 Date: 2026.01.24
16:33:30 +0530
(vi) Certified copy of the Bank statement of the Loan account as Ex. PW1/4;
(vii) The original deposit receipts of the installments as Ex. PW1/5 & Ex. PW1/6 respectively;
(viii) The original death certificate of Late Sh. Satish Lamba as Ex. PW1/7;
(ix) The copy of claim form with original endorsement as Ex. PW1/8;
(x) The copies of letters written to defendants alongwith postal receipts as Ex. PW1/9 to Ex. PW1/12;
(xi) The computer print out of the email correspondence as Ex. PW1/13(colly.);
(xii) The original letter by defendant no.2 repudiating the claim of the deponent as Ex. PW1/14;
(xiii) The photocopy of the loan account statement as Ex. PW1/15(OSR);
(xiv) The photocopy of the loan closure letter alongwith NOC as Ex. PW1/16(colly.)(OSR) and
(xv) The office copy of the legal notice alongwith the postal receipts as Ex.
PW1/17(colly.).
PW-1 was cross examined.
Plaintiff also examined one Sh. Vinay Lamba as PW-2 to prove her case.
PW-2 Sh. Vinay Lamba tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/X and relied upon and exhibited following documents:
(i) The photocopy of aadhar card of PW-2 as Ex. PW2/1(OSR);
(ii) The computer printout of the policy as Ex. PW2/2 and
(iii) The certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex. PW2/3. VINOD KUMAR PW-2 was cross-examined. No other witness was produced by MEENA Digitally signed by plaintiff in plaintiff evidence.
VINOD KUMAR MEENA Date: 2026.01.24 16:33:44 +0530 Civ DJ No.613374/2016 Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 7 of 32 DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE Evidence of defendant no.1:-
7. In its defence, the defendant no.1 has examined Ms. Ekjot Bhasin, Legal Manager, HDFC Bank Limited as DW-1 through her evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW1/X and relied upon and exhibited following documents:
(i) Copy of Power of attorney in favour of DW-1 as Ex. DW1/A (OSR);
(ii) The original loan application form alongwith agreement as Ex. PW1/D1;
(iii) The copy of the loan statement of account no.81462970 as Ex. D1W1/B and
(iv) The office copy of the reply dated 09.09.2016 to the legal notice as Ex.
D1W1/C. DW-1 was cross-examined. No other witness was produced by defendant no.1 in defendant evidence.
Evidence of defendant no.2:-
8. In its defence, the defendant no.2 has examined Sh. Vishal Gupta as DW-2 through his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.DW2/1 and relied upon and exhibited following documents:
(i) Copy of authority letter dated 05.05.2015 in favour of Sh. Akash Singh as Mark-A;
(ii) Copy of authority letter dated 15.04.2019 in favour of Sh. Kunal Arora VINOD as Mark-B; KUMAR
(iii) Copy of authority letter dated 04.06.2025 in favour of Sh. Vishal Gupta MEENA Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR MEENA Date: 2026.01.24 Civ DJ No.613374/2016 16:33:54 +0530 Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 8 of 32 as Ex. DW2/C;
(iv) Lis of proposer/applicants to whom the premium amount was returned back as Mark-D and
(v) Copy of letter dated 20.05.2016 issued by defendant no.2 to plaintiff as Ex. PW1/D2.
DW-2 was cross-examined. No other witness was produced by defendant no.2 in defendant evidence.
9. No evidence was adduced by plaintiff in rebuttal of evidence of defendant.
FINAL ARGUMENTS
10. Final arguments have been heard on behalf of both the parties at length.
• Final arguments of plaintiff: It is argued by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff that husband of the plaintiff applied for a commercial vehicle loan for purchase of a Tanker with defendant no.1, which was duly sanctioned by the defendant no.1, however, at the time of completion of formalities, relationship Manager of defendant no.1 namely Mr. Prakash Sinha informed the husband of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 had taken a HDFC Life Group Credit Protect Insurance Policy from defendant no.2, in order to secure/insure its creditors and only on payment of a one time premium of Rs.1,70,000/-, the loan account would be secured, in the sense that in case of his death, the defendant no.2, would pay the entire balance loan amount and the loan installments already paid to bank would also be returned. It is further VINOD KUMAR MEENA Civ DJ No.613374/2016 Digitally signed by Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 9 of 32 VINOD KUMAR MEENA Date: 2026.01.24 16:34:04 +0530 argued that on the assurance of defendant no.1, husband of the plaintiff gave his assent for his enrollment/membership in the said HDFC Life Group Credit Protect Insurance Policy and the amount of Rs.1,70,000/- towards one time premium was deducted and disbursed to defendant no.2. It is further argued that the said one time insurance premium was paid on 21.05.2015 and policy no.PP000069 with membership no.81281667 was generated. It is further argued that husband of the plaintiff diligently paid monthly installments towards repayment of loan to defendant no.1 till March 2016, however, on 31.03.2016, husband of plaintiff unfortunately expired. It is further argued that husband of the plaintiff diligently paid the said installments till his death i.e. for almost eight months since the disbursement of loan and taking the group insurance policy, however, no oral/written communication had ever been made with respect to any other defect or formalities, which were to be rectified or fulfilled, as the case may be. It is further argued that after the death of husband of the plaintiff, plaintiff applied for the insurance claim and again fulfilled all the formalities, however, after taking a considerable time, insurance claim was rejected/declined on the ground that husband of the plaintiff had not undergone the medical checkup. It is further argued that the insurance claim has been declined on the basis of frivolous grounds and it is matter of record that none of defendants had taken any steps to complete alleged short comings, if any for entire calender year of 2015 and further for entire financial year ending on 31.03.2016 nor cancelled the policy nor refunded the one time premium during the lifetime of husband of plaintiff. VINOD KUMAR MEENA Digitally signed Civ DJ No.613374/2016 by VINOD KUMAR MEENA Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 10 of 32 Date: 2026.01.24 16:34:11 +0530 It is further argued that the only ground which is taken by or on behalf of defendant no.2 is that husband of plaintiff had not undergone medical check-up, despite the fact that medical checkup is not the pre-requisite for the group insurance policy, moreover no communication has been made to husband of plaintiff during his lifetime that any medical checkup has to be undergone by him. It is also submitted that there are no proof on record to substantiate that defendant no.2 had ever communicated about said medical checkup and the one time premium had never been return/refunded till his death. It is further submitted that defendant no.2 were duty bound as per IRDA guidelines to issue group insurance policy or to take steps within 15 days from receiving of insurance premium, however, defendant no.2 kept sitting with insurance premium for entire calender year till 31.12.2015 and further for entire financial year 31.03.2015 and when insurance claim is made, they took a false, baseless and frivolous grounds to reject the insurance claim. It is finally argued that suit be decreed in favour of plaintiff and against defendants.
• Final arguments of defendant no.1: It was argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.1 that the suit has been filed against defendant no.1 without any basis, as the role and responsibility of defendant no.1 was only with respect to sanction and disbursement of the loan and same was admittedly done by defendant no.1. It is further submitted that the only grievance of plaintiff is with regard to rejection of insurance claim by defendant no.2. It is also submitted that at the request of VINOD KUMAR Civ DJ No.613374/2016 MEENA Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 11 of 32 Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR MEENA Date: 2026.01.24 16:34:18 +0530 husband of plaintiff, for securing commercial vehicle loan, defendant no.1, sanctioned the insurance premium and the said insurance premium was duly disbursed in the account of defendant no.2 and issuance of group insurance policy and subsequent sanctioning of insurance claim is within the domain of defendant no.2. It is further submitted that husband of the plaintiff had not undergone medicals, as requested by defendant no.2, on 21.09.2015 and as a result of which the policy was not issued. It is further argued that the said insurance premium was returned by defendant no.2 and had been adjusted in the loan account. It is finally argued that suit of plaintiff qua defendant no.1 be disposed off as dismissed.
• Final arguments of defendant no.2: It was argued by Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 that prayer with respect to permanent and mandatory injunction had become infructous as loan account had already been closed by defendant no.1, as payment of all the installments has been made by plaintiff. It is also argued that after receiving of insurance premium the proposal was not accepted as plaintiff had not appeared for medical checkup despite due communication. It is further argued that no policy bond has been issued and there was no contract between the plaintiff and defendant no.2. It is also argued that in the present case, while advancing impugned loan by defendant no.1, the husband of the plaintiff opted for the group insurance to safeguard re-payment of said loan in case of an untoward event and an amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was deducted VINOD by defendant no.1 and paid to defendant no.2 from the loan account. It KUMAR MEENA Digitally signed Civ DJ No.613374/2016 by VINOD KUMAR MEENA Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 12 of 32 Date: 2026.01.24 16:34:24 +0530 is further argued that towards the premium, proposal no.PP000069 (member no.81281667) of said group insurance policy in respect of late husband of plaintiff was sent for acceptance and for issuance of policy to the late husband of plaintiff, however, the medical checkup was required for the same and defendant no.2 duly communicated plaintiff on 21.09.2015 and after said telephonic conversation, late husband of plaintiff confirmed to attend medical checkup on 25.09.2015, however, he had not appeared for said medical checkup fixed at Apollo Clinic. It is further argued that as late husband of plaintiff had not appeared for medical checkup, the said premium of Rs.1,70,000/- was returned by defendant no.2 to defendant no.1 on 29.09.2015. It is finally argued that upon the said return of premium amount on 29.09.2015, defendant no.2 had no liability towards plaintiff. Ld. counsel for defendant no.2 has relief upon judgment of Hon'ble Appex Court in case titled as Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Raja Vasireddy Komallavalli Kamba & Others dated 27.03.1984. It is finally pleaded that suit of plaintiff qua defendant no.2 is liable to be dismissed.
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS
11. After hearing final arguments on behalf of both the parties and after going through the pleadings as well as evidence and all the annexed & exhibited documents and record, issue wise finding given as under: VINOD KUMAR MEENA Findings on issue no. 1:- Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR MEENA
12. As far as issue no. 1 i.e. Whether Sh. Satish Lamba, deceased Date: 2026.01.24 16:34:31 +0530 Civ DJ No.613374/2016 Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 13 of 32 husband of plaintiff, had not undergone medicals for issuance of HDFC Life Group Credit Protect Policy vide proposal no.PP000069? OPD-2, is concerned, it was incumbent upon the defendant no. 2 to substantiate that Late Sh. Satish Lamba had not undergone medical check-up, which were prerequisite for issuance of impugned group insurance policy. To this, it is observed by the Court that it is pleaded by defendant no. 2 in para 2 to preliminary submissions that the group insurance policy was only to be issued after medical checkups and for which a telephone call was made on 21.09.2015 and he had not turned up for the said medical checkups fixed on 25.09.2015 at Apolo Clinic. It is pertinent to mention here that same has been reproduced/ averred in para 5 of evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW2/1 by or on behalf of defendant no. 2. It is again pertinent to mention here that there is only one witness by or on behalf of defendant no. 2, who is DW2 Sh. Vishal Gupta.
To decide the present issue, this issue has to be divided into two parts:- Firstly, as to whether the alleged medicals were prerequisite and infact mandatory for issuance of the group insurance policy and secondly as to whether deceased Sh. Satish Lamba had not undergone the same, despite due communication to him by or on behalf of defendant no. 2.
So, the very first thing which has to be proved by or on behalf of defendant no. 2 is that as to whether the medical checkup was the prerequisite for issuance of the group insurance policy. To this, it is observed by the Court that it is matter of record that there is nothing on judicial record to substantiate that medical checkup was prerequisite for issuance of the group insurance policy. It is pertinent to mention here that it VINOD was specifically asked from DW2, however, he gave evasive answer and has KUMAR MEENA Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR MEENA Civ DJ No.613374/2016 Date: 2026.01.24 Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 14 of 32 16:34:39 +0530 not said anything about the same. The relevant part from the deposition/ cross-examination of DW2 is quoted here as under:-
"...Ques: Is it correct that medical checkup is not a mandatory requirement for issuance of Life Insurance Policies in each and every case? Ans: Usually, medical checkup is required in all the life insurance policies, however, certain are under subject to underwriting guidelines. Ques: Whether there were any underwriting guidelines regarding medical checkup for HDFC Life Group Credit Protect Insurance Policy? Ans: I have to check company's guidelines to answer this question..."
It is pertinent to mention here that no other witness has been produced by defendant no. 2 to substantiate his averments/ pleadings. Moreover, it is observed that Mark-B is the information bulletin of the group insurance policy and same is duly admitted by defendant no.2. The underwriting clause specifically provides that the customer(insured person) has to declare his medical history in short medical questionnaire and medical check-up is not mandatory. So, from the above-mentioned it is clear that there is absolutely nothing on record to substantiate that the medical checkup was prerequisite/mandatory for issuance of medical insurance. Once it is clear that medical checkup was not mandatory, it has to be proved/ substantiate on the part of defendant no. 2 that they had duly communicated him (husband of plaintiff) about the said medical checkup and despite communication deceased husband of plaintiff had not appeared for the medical check-up. To this, DW2 in his cross-examination categorically stated that he is not aware about any such communication and there is nothing on judicial record to substantiate the same. The relevant para is quoted here as under for the sake of clarity:-
VINOD "...Ques: As per para no. 5 of your affidavit Ex. DW-2/1, the defendant no. 2 KUMAR made a telephonic call to the deceased on 21.09.2015. Can you tell MEENA telephone number on which the said call was made? Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR MEENA Date: 2026.01.24 Civ DJ No.613374/2016 16:34:45 +0530 Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 15 of 32 Ans: I am not aware. (Vol. The same may be checked and confirmed.) Ques: Is it correct that defendant no. 2 has not filed any call records regarding the telephonic conversation between defendant no. 2 and the deceased?
Ans: It is correct..."
So, it is clear that there is nothing on record except the bald averment of defendant no. 2, to prove/substantitate that any communication has ever been made by defendant no. 2 to deceased husband of plaintiff. It is also observed that defendant no. 2 categorically stated in his cross- examination that no direct communication had ever taken place between defendant no. 2 and deceased husband of plaintiff, as in the cases of the group insurance policy, communication used to be made by defendant no. 2 to defendant no. 1, being the master policy holder. The relevant para is quoted here as under for the sake of clarity:-
"...Ques: Did defendant no. 2 ever informed the deceased that his policy could not be generated due to lack of medical checkup? Ans: It may not be directly conveyed to the deceased as in the case of HDFC Life Group Credit Protect Insurance Policy, the communication made with master policy holder (MPH)..."
The above quoted averment also nullifies the pleadings with respect to communication of medical checkup, as stated by defendant no. 2 in his written statement and as mentioned in his evidence by way of affidavit. It was also specifically asked to DW-2 as to whether any written communication had ever taken place between defendant no. 2 and deceased husband of plaintiff and the answer was in negative. The relevant para is quoted here as under for the sake of clarity:-
"...Ques: Did the defendant no. 2 ever communicated with the deceased in the period between receipt of proposal form and issuance of letter dated 20.05.2016 by way of written communication?
Ans: No..." VINOD
KUMAR
MEENA
Digitally signed by
VINOD KUMAR
Civ DJ No.613374/2016 MEENA
Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 16 of 32 Date: 2026.01.24
16:34:52 +0530
It is also pertinent to mention here that defendant no. 2 in its pleadings in written statement and in its averments in evidence by way of affidavit had stated that medical checkup was fixed for 25.09.2015 before/ in Apolo Clinic, however, there are no such records in the judicial file.
From the above-mentioned, it is clear that the said medical checkup was not mandatory or prerequisite for the the group insurance policy; it is also clear that no communication had ever been made by defendant no. 2 to deceased husband of plaintiff regarding any medical checkup. It is also clear that no medical checkup was ever fixed by defendant no. 2.
From the above-mentioned issue no. 1 is decided against defendant no. 2.
Findings on issue no. 2:-
13. As far as issue no. 2 i.e. Whether amount of premium of Rs.1,70,000/- received by defendant no.1 and transfer to defendant no.2 was returned on 29.09.2015? OPD-2, is concerned, it was incumbent upon the defendant no. 2 to substantiate that the sum of Rs.1,70,000/-, which was received from defendant no.1 to defendant no.2 as entire insurance premium, had been transferred/returned back to defendant no.1 on 29.09.2015. To this, it is observed by the court that defendant no.2 had only filed one computer generated/print out statement as Mark-D, wherein the policy number and details of deceased husband of plaintiff has been mentioned with other persons and date has been given as 29.09.2015. It is pertinent to mention here that Mark-D is just a single document, without any seal or stamp and heading of the same is 'list of returned cases including the VINOD Civ DJ No.613374/2016 KUMAR Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 17 of 32 MEENA Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR MEENA Date: 2026.01.24 16:34:58 +0530 case of Late husband of the plaintiff'. From the heading of the same, it is clear that this document has been created/prepared/typed just for the purpose of filing in the present case. Nothing has been provided to substantiate the same. Admittedly, there is no account statement of defendant no.2, which suggests that defendant no.2 had returned back or credited the amount in the account of defendant no.1.
Defendant no.2 specifically cross examined witness of defendant no.1 DW-1 on 16.01.2025 and it was stated by DW-1 that the said amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was adjusted/parked back in the loan account of the borrower on 10.06.2016 and he is not aware about the date on which the sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- was refunded. The relevant paras are quoted here as under for the sake of clarity:-
"...It is correct that Rs.1,70,000/- which is referred to as Mark-B on Ex.DW-1/B was adjusted / parked back by the HDFC Bank / defendant no.1 into loan account of the borrower on 10.06.2016. It is correct that this amount of Rs.1,70,000/- was refunded / paid by the HDFC Life Insurance / defendant no.2 to HDFC Bank / defendant no.1 and therefore, returned to the borrower's loan account. It is correct that no written intimation was ever given to the borrower or legal heirs with regard to adjustment and receipt of amount of Rs.1,70,000/- in the loan account of borrower. (Vol. Statement of account is available for reference to the borrower and his family).
I am not aware about the date on which Rs.1,70,000/- was refunded / paid by HDFC Life Insurance / defendant no.2 to the HDFC Bank / defendant no. 1.
I cannot say whether the said amount was refunded on 29.09.2015 by the HDFC Life Insurance / defendant no. 2 to the HDFC Bank / defendant no.1.
I cannot say whether the meaning of 'value date' is referred to as in context of actual date of financial transaction happened with the HDFC Bank i.e. defendant no.1. It is incorrect to suggest that during the time lag of 29.09.2015 to 10.06.2016, the HDFC Bank had withheld the money of refunded premium amounting to Rs.1,70,000/-..."
Defendant no.2 produced only one witness i.e. DW-2 and except the vague and uncorroborated document Mark-D, there is nothing on record VINOD KUMAR MEENA Digitally signed Civ DJ No.613374/2016 by VINOD KUMAR MEENA Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 18 of 32 Date: 2026.01.24 16:35:05 +0530 to substantiate that the sum of Rs. 1,70,000/- was returned on 29.09.2015 as alleged.
From the above-mentioned, it is clear that defendant no.2 failed to substantiate that amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- was returned back to defendant no.1 on 29.09.2015. It is pertinent to mention here that the date when the said amount of Rs.1,70,000/- is shown as credited in the loan account Ex. PW1/15 at Point 'B' is 10.06.2016. It is observed that except the bald averments there is nothing to substantiate that the said sum of Rs.1,70,000/- was returned by defendant no. 2 to defendant no.1 on 29.09.2015.
In view of the above-mentioned, the issue no. 2 is decided against defendant no.2.
Findings on issue no. 3:-
14. As far as issue no. 3 i.e. Whether the husband of the plaintiff defaulted in payment of EMIs towards loan financed by defendant no.1?
OPD-1, is concerned, it is observed that this issue has neither been pressed for nor any evidence has been adduced to support same. Moreover, as per admitted fact entire loan amount has been paid back by plaintiff.
In view of the above-mentioned, the issue no.3 is decided against the defendant no.1.
Findings on issue no. 4 & 5:-
15. As far as issue no. 4 & 5 i.e. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree, as prayed? OPP and Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the interest, if yes, at what rate and for which period? OPP, are concerned, same are being taken together for discussion and adjudication, as these issues are VINOD KUMAR Civ DJ No.613374/2016 MEENA Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 19 of 32 Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR MEENA Date: 2026.01.24 16:35:11 +0530 inter connected and may conveniently and logically be decided with common findings.
16. Before proceeding further with deciding/giving finding on the above-mentioned issues, the court deem it fit to mention here that case has been vaguely put before the court by all the parties, especially the defendant no.1 qua their role with respect to impugned transaction i.e. transaction pertaining to the group insurance policy. To understand the case better and to give a clear and concrete finding, let us understand the parties to the suit and their role to the impugned transaction.
Plaintiff: Plaintiff is wife of Late Sh. Satish Lamba, who admittedly took a commercial vehicle loan from the defendant no.1. To secure the said commercial vehicle loan, the husband of plaintiff availed the group insurance policy through defendant no.1. It is pertinent to mention here that the commercial vehicle loan was taken from defendant no.1 and the group insurance has been taken through defendant no.1 from defendant no.2. The insurance premium was paid by defendant no.1 to defendant no.2 after adding the entire one time insurance premium of Rs.1,70,000/- in the total sanctioned loan amount. As husband of plaintiff, Sh. Satish Lamba expired on 31.03.2016, insurance claim was applied through defendant no.1 and also directly to defendant no.2, however, the claim has been rejected on the ground that medical check-up has not been done by husband of plaintiff.
Defendant no.2: Before understanding the role of defendant no.1, let us Digitally understand the role of defendant no.2. As per defendant no.2, defendant no.1 signed by VINOD VINOD KUMAR KUMAR MEENA MEENA Date:
2026.01.24 16:35:18 Civ DJ No.613374/2016 +0530 Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 20 of 32 is the master policy holder, who had taken/subscribed impugned group insurance policy with defendant no.2 for its customers qua the loans given by it; as the same was beneficial to both defendant no.1 as well as prospective consumer (husband of the plaintiff herein), as in case of any untoward incident, the balance outstanding loan amount would be payable by defendant no.2 to the bank (defendant no.1). Defendant no.2 received the one time insurance premium of Rs.1,70,000/- from defendant no.1, on behalf of plaintiff's husband. Defendant no.2 contended that certain medical check-up were inevitable/mandatory for issurance of the group insurance policy, however, despite specific communication, husband of the plaintiff had not appeared for medical check-up and accordingly, the group insurance policy was not issued and the one time insurance premium was sent back/returned by defendant no.2 to defendant no.1. Before proceeding further with discussing the role of defendant no.1, it is pertinent to mention here that from the finding of issue no.1 & 2, it is clear that medical check-up was not mandatory and no communication had ever been made by defendant no.2 to defendant no.1 or the deceased husband of the plaintiff. Moreover, there are no proof to the effect that sum of Rs.1,70,000/- was returned back by defendant no.2 to defendant no.1 on 29.09.2015.
So, defendant no.2 is the insurer and there was contract between defendant no. 2 and defendant no.1 as insurer and master policy holder. Admittedly, one time insurance debited by defendant no.1 from loan account of husband of plaintiff and credited to defendant no.2. Defendant no.2 kept it with itself and when claim made, returned it to defendant no.1.
VINOD Defendant no.1: Now let us understand the role of defendant no.1. KUMAR MEENA Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR MEENA Civ DJ No.613374/2016 Date: 2026.01.24 Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 21 of 32 16:35:23 +0530 Defendant no.1 is admittedly the bank, who had sanctioned and cleared the commercial vehicle loan to deceased husband of plaintiff. The one time insurance premium has been added in the sanctioned loan amount and had been handed over by defendant no.1 to defendant no.2. Now defendant no.1 has remained silent and / or had not clarified his role/position qua the group insurance policy.
Now to understand the role of defendant no.1, let us understand his role through respective pleadings of the parties to the suit. In para 5 & 6 of the plaint, plaintiff has categorically averred that at the time of sanctioning of commercial vehicle loan, the relationship manager of defendant no.1 informed the deceased husband of the plaintiff that defendant no.1 had taken the said policy i.e. HDFC Life Group Protect Insurance Policy, from defendant no.2 in order to insure its creditor and a sum of Rs.1,70,000/-, as one time insurance premium, was debited from the account of late husband of the plaintiff and credited/further transferred in the account of defendant no.2. The defendant no.1 in his written statement in para wise reply has just evasively denied the said pleadings. He remained completely silent and has not clarified his role qua the group insurance policy, despite the fact that it is defendant no.1, who debited the sum from the loan account and further transferred/credited the same in the account of defendant no.2.
This can also be clarified/substantiated from the factum that defendant no. 2 had categorically pleaded in his written statement as well as in his evidence by way of affidavit that defendant no.1 was master policy holder, who subscribed/taken the impugned policy for the benefit of himself and the prospective consumer/customers. The said position also clearly VINOD substantiated from the contentions/averments/deposition of DW-1 in his KUMAR MEENA Digitally signed by VINOD Civ DJ No.613374/2016 KUMAR MEENA Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 22 of 32 Date: 2026.01.24 16:35:31 +0530 cross-examination, wherein he stated that defendant no.1 is the master policy holder. The relevant para is quoted here as under:-
"...It is correct to suggest that Rs.1,70,000/- was the premium of proposed policy and was part of the sanctioned amount which is shown at point Mark-A on Ex. DW-1/B. It is correct to suggest that the said premium was paid by HDFC Bank/defendant no.1 to HDFC Life Insurance / defendant no.2 (Col. The premium was paid on the instructions of the borrower).
It is correct to suggest that the policy which was proposed to be issued to the borrower is the same policy wherein the HDFC Bank / defendant no.1 was the master policy holder...".
The above quoted deposition clearly brings forth the fact that defendant no. 1 had just tried to mislead the Court. The reason for this can easily be understood with the fact that defendant no. 1 & defendant no. 2, admittedly has same Board of Directors.
Be that as it may and without delving further on this aspect or on the aspect of doctrine of lifting of corporate veil, the Court is proceeding further to decide the issue at hand.
17. From the above-mentioned factual position qua the role of parties may be crystallized as under.
Plaintiff is husband of Late Sh. Satish Lamba, who took commercial vehicle loan from defendant no. 1. At the time of taking the loan the group insurance policy was offered by defendant no. 1 as master policy holder and plaintiff agreed and amount of Rs. 1,70,000/-, as one time premium, was added in total sanctioned amount of loan and was debited from the account of Sh. Satish Lamba and credited/ handed over in the account of defendant no. 2, accordingly, the husband of plaintiff namely Sh. Satish Lamba became member of the group insurance policy with policy no.
PP000069 and with member no. 81281667. The husband of the plaintiff VINOD
KUMAR
MEENA
Digitally signed
by VINOD
Civ DJ No.613374/2016 KUMAR MEENA
Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 23 of 32 Date: 2026.01.24
16:35:36 +0530
namely Sh. Satish Lamba expired on 31.03.2016 and the plaintiff applied for insurance claim to defendant no. 1 and on their instructions to defendant no. 2 also. This insurance claim was rejected through the letter dated 20.05.2016 for the reason that Sh. Satish Lamba has not undergone medical checkup as requested to him on 21.09.2015. As discussed above in the heading of findings on issue no. 1, it is clear that medical checkup was not mandatory/ prerequisite for the issuance of the group insurance and even otherwise no communication has been ever made for the alleged medical checkups. It has also been decided under the heading of findings on issue no. 2 that the amount of one time premium was kept by defendant no. 2 and it had not been returned/ credited back to defendant no. 1 till 10.06.2016.
So from the above-mentioned it is clear that one time insurance premium was duly paid by or on behalf of husband of plaintiff to defendant no. 2 through defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 kept the same in its custody for entire calender year of 2015 and further for entire financial year of 2015-2016. It is only when the insured person i.e. husband of plaintiff expired on 31.03.2016 and applied for the insurance claim, the same was rejected/ dismissed by taking baseless, frivolous and untenable grounds.
18. Now question arises as to whether insurer can sit over the insurance premium without taking action for any period or the insurance proposal has to be culminated into insurance policy within a specific period.
What is the period for issuance/ rejection of insurance policy. To understand the case precisely and to decide the issue at hand succinctly, it is inevitable to understand the period, which has been prescribed for deciding on the aspect of acceptance or rejection of insurance. VINOD KUMAR MEENA Digitally signed by Civ DJ No.613374/2016 VINOD KUMAR MEENA Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 24 of 32 Date: 2026.01.24 16:35:44 +0530 To understand it more precisely, we have to go through the Regulation 4 of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (protection of policy holders interest) regulations 2002 (hereinafter referred to be as Regulation of 2002). The same is quoted here as under for the sake of clarity. Proposal for insurance ..."(1) Except in cases of a marine insurance cover, where current market practices do not insist on a written proposal form, in all cases, a proposal for grant of a cover, either for life business or for general business, must be evidenced by a written document. It is the duty of an insurer to furnish to the insured free of charge, within 30 days of the acceptance of a proposal, a copy of the proposal form.
(2) Forms and documents used in the grant of cover may, depending upon the circumstances of each case, be made available in languages recognised under the Constitution of India.
(3) In filling the form of proposal, the prospect is to be guided by the provisions of Section 45 of the Act. Any proposal form seeking information for grant of life cover may prominently state therein the requirements of Section 45 of the Act.
(4) Where a proposal form is not used, the insurer shall record the information obtained orally or in writing, and confirm it within a period of 15 days thereof with the proposer and incorporate the information in its cover note or policy. The onus of proof shall rest with the insurer in respect of any information not so recorded, where the insurer claims that the proposer suppressed any material information or provided misleading or false information on any matter material to the grant of a cover. (5) Wherever the benefit of nomination is available to the proposer, in terms of the Act or the conditions of policy, the insurer shall draw the attention of the proposer to it and encourage the prospect to avail the facility. (6) Proposals shall be processed by the insurer with speed and efficiency and all decisions thereof shall be communicated by it in writing within a reasonable period not exceeding 15 days from receipt of proposals by the insurer..."
19. Having gone through the above-mentioned, it can be easily deduced that the copy of proposal form has to be mandatorily be furnished to insured free of charge within 30 days of acceptance of the proposal. In VINOD alternate, where proposal form is not used, (as in the present matter as it was KUMAR MEENA Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR MEENA Civ DJ No.613374/2016 Date: 2026.01.24 Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 25 of 32 16:35:50 +0530 a group insurance taken by defendant no. 1 as master policy holder), it was duty of insurer to record all the information and confirm it within a period of 15 days. It has also been clearly and succinctly provided in Regulation 4(6) of the regulations of 2002 that the proposal shall be processed by the insurer with speed and efficiency and all decisions thereof shall be communicated by it in writing within a reasonable period not exceeding 15 days from receipt of proposal by the insurer.
Very strangely, none of the above guidelines have been followed by defendant no. 2. It appears that defendant no. 2 is not at all interested in following the due guidelines and rules as provided by regulatory authorities through regulation of 2002. In the present matter the insurer i.e. defendant no. 2, kept sitting over after receiving the one time full insurance premium for entire calender year and then for entire financial year and when, after the death of insured, a claim was raised, same was rejected on false, frivolous, unatenable, unconscionable and extortionate grounds. In the present matter the impugned insurance policy is a group insurance policy, which has been executed primarily between defendant no. 2 as insurer and defendant no. 1 as master policy holder. The husband of plaintiff took the policy at the instance of defendant no. 1, who was the master policy holder. In other words, the husband of the plaintiff was added as a member of the group insurance policy.
20. The Ld. Counsel for defendant no. 2 has relied upon one judgment titled as LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS.
RAJA VASIREDDY KOMALLAVALLI KAMBA & OTHERS (DATE VINOD
KUMAR
OF JUDGMENT 27.03.1984), 1984 AIR 1014, wherein rejection of MEENA
Digitally signed
by VINOD
KUMAR MEENA
Date: 2026.01.24
Civ DJ No.613374/2016 16:35:56 +0530
Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 26 of 32
insurance claim was upheld, as there was no concluded contract because the proposal was not accepted. It is pertinent to mention here that the facts and circumstances of the present case and the case in LIC (Supra), are distinguishable on the following aspect. In LIC (Supra) proposal form was filled on 27.12.1960 and insured person issued two cheques towards first premium, which were encashed on 29.12.1960 and 11.01.1961 respectively and the insured, died on very next day i.e. on 12.01.1961. Whereas in the present matter the insurance policy is not an individual policy but a group insurance policy, which was taken by defendant no. 1 from insurer defendant no. 2 and one time premium was paid on 21.05.2015 by or on behalf of husband of plaintiff and accordingly because member to that group insurance policy and insurer i.e. defendant no. 2 kept sitting over it and when the insured person expired after 10 months i.e. after entire calender year of 2015 and after entire financial year of 2015-2016, the insurance claim got rejected on the ground that no medical checkup was done by insured. As discussed above the ground is just a baseless ground. Accordingly, the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in LIC insurance (Supra) is not applicable to the present case.
From the above-mentioned, it is clear that impugned insurance plan was a group insurance plan and as discussed above defendant no. 1 was the master policy holder and defendant no. 2 was the insurer. So, there was a concluded contract between defendant no. 2 and defendant no. 1. The defendant no. 1 and defendant no. 2 had acted in close coordination just to deny rightful claim of plaintiff and same can be understood more precisely VINOD KUMAR with the fact that admittedly board of directors of both these companies are MEENA same. Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR MEENA Date:
2026.01.24 16:36:02 +0530 Civ DJ No.613374/2016 Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 27 of 32 Admittedly, the one time insurance premium was added by defendant no.1 in total amount of sanctioned loan and was debited from the loan account of husband of plaintiff and credited in the account of defendant no. 2. No written communication has ever been conveyed to the insured person either by defendant no. 2 or by defendant no. 1 regarding any defect or formalities to be completed within the prescribed time, as provided in Regulation (4) of Regulations of 2002.
In view of the above-mentioned, it can be easily deduced that insurance claim has been rejected/denied without any basis and plaintiff is entitled for the money decree.
21. Now, Court has to decide the entitlement of plaintiff towards the amount claimed. It is contended/pleaded by plaintiff that plaintiff is entitled not only towards the outstanding EMIs, which were left pending, at the time of date of death of her husband but also entitled to get refund of EMIs already paid by insured person/husband of plaintiff till his death. There are no evidence or record to substantiate that plaintiff is entitled to get the refund of entire loan amount. It is pertinent to mention here that defendant no.2 has categorically and clearly admitted in his pleadings, through written statement, that through the group insurance policy, the customers/insured persons are entitled to get the relief qua the outstanding balance loan amount, as same would be paid by defendant no.2 to the bank (herein defendant no.1). The relevant para is quoted here as under:
"... Defendant no.1 i.e., HDFC Bank has HDFC Life Group Credit Protect Insurance Policy with Defendant no. 2 i.e., HDFC Standard Life Insurance VINOD Company Limited, for its customers qua the loans given by it to its customers KUMAR which is beneficial both to the Bank as well as to the Customer inasmuch as in MEENA case of any, untoward event, the outstanding balance loan amount if any, Digitally signed payable by the customer to the Bank will be paid by the Insurance to the by VINOD KUMAR MEENA Date:
2026.01.24 Civ DJ No.613374/2016 16:36:08 +0530 Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 28 of 32 Bank. It be noted that, the Defendant no.1, HDFC Bank, is the Master Policy Holder and its customers who want to secure their loan amounts by way of insurance would become members of the said group insurance policy taken by Defendant no.1..."
In view of the above-mentioned admission, it can be easily deduced that plaintiff is entitled to get the money decree with respect to the outstanding loan amount, which was pending at the time of death of her husband. At this stage, it is pertinent to mention here that the plaintiff had cleared the remaining EMIs towards loan amount also to the defendant no.1 to avoid the consequent penalties.
As entire loan amount has been cleared by plaintiff to defendant no. 1, as no timely action was taken by defendant no. 2 to clear remaining/ outstanding EMIs to defendant no. 1, defendant no. 2, is directed to pay the amount towards remaining EMIs which were left pending at the time of death of insured person i.e. husband of the plaintiff to the plaintiff. This amount to be paid after deducting Rs. 1,70,000/- which was one time insurance premium paid by defendant no. 1 to defendant no. 2 on 21.05.2015, however, later on credited back by defendant no. 2 to defendant no. 1 on 10.06.2016. As far as, claim regarding recovery of sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental agony are concerned, same has neither been pressed for nor any evidence has been led by plaintiff, so the same is not decreed.
In view of the above-mentioned, the issue no. 4 is partly decided in favour of plaintiff with the findings that plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount, towards EMIs, which were pending at the time of death of her husband (which later on have been paid by plaintiff to defendant no. 1 during pendency of the suit), from defendant no. 2. It is again clarified that VINOD defendant no. 2 is at liberty to deduct the amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- from the KUMAR MEENA Civ DJ No.613374/2016 Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 29 of 32 MEENA Date: 2026.01.24 16:36:15 +0530 amount to be paid by it to plaintiff, as same has been refunded/ credited back by defendant no. 2 to defendant no. 1 and credited back/ parked in the loan account of husband of the plaintiff on 10.06.2016. It is again clarified that plaintiff is not entitled to recover the sum paid towards EMIs by her husband till his death.
22. As far as issue no. 5 is concerned, the plaintiff has sought pendente- lite and future interest @ 24% p.a. on the adjudicated amount. It was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that there was a contract or a custom or usage in the market which entitles the plaintiff to receive the interest @ 24% p.a as pendente-lite and future interest. PW1/plaintiff in his evidence has failed to prove that there was contract or a custom or a usage which entitles the plaintiff to receive pendente-lite and future interest @ 24% p.a. Thus, in the present case, taking a judicial notice of the interest granted by the nationalized banks in case of the money lend or advanced in relation to commercial transactions, I consider it appropriate, to grant to the plaintiff the pendente-lite and future interest @ 6% per annum.
23. Before parting with findings on issue no.4 & 5, it is hereby again clarified that the prayer of the plaintiff for the grant of pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of @ 24% p.a is found to be excessive so, instead of @ 24% p.a the pendente-lite and future interest has been granted @6% per annum on the adjudicated amount.
VINOD KUMAR MEENA Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR MEENA Date: 2026.01.24 16:36:22 +0530 Civ DJ No.613374/2016 Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 30 of 32 RELIEF
24. On the basis of the finding of the issue no. 1, 2, 4 &5, this Court is adjudicating the suit with the findings that the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed with the findings that plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount, towards EMIs, which were pending at the time of death of her husband (which later on have been paid by plaintiff to defendant no. 1 during pendency of the suit), from defendant no. 2. It is again clarified that defendant no. 2 is at liberty to deduct the amount of Rs. 1,70,000/- from the amount to be paid by it to plaintiff, as same has been refunded/ credited back by defendant no. 2 to defendant no. 1 and credited back/ parked in the loan account of husband of the plaintiff on 10.06.2016. It is again clarified that plaintiff is not entitled to recover the sum paid towards EMIs by her husband till his death. The adjudicated amount has to be returned with pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum.
25. No order as to costs as the parties shall bear their own respective costs of the suit.
26. Applications, if any, which are pending in the present judicial file and have not been pressed for by the parties are also disposed of as dismissed as not pressed.
27. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly, after the payment of VINOD KUMAR deficient court fees (if any). MEENA Digitally signed by VINOD KUMAR MEENA Date: 2026.01.24 16:36:36 +0530 Civ DJ No.613374/2016 Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 31 of 32
28. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
VINOD Digitally by VINOD signed KUMAR MEENA KUMAR Date:
Announced in the open Court MEENA 2026.01.24
16:36:46 +0530
today on 24th January , 2026 (Vinod Kumar Meena)
District Judge-10
West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
24.01.2026
Civ DJ No.613374/2016
Promila Lamba Vs. HDFC Bank Limited Page 32 of 32