State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
The Chief Manager, State Bank Of India vs Mr. Manoj Kumar Barik on 24 February, 2022
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry IN THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ODISHA, CUTTACK First Appeal No. A/317/2017 ( Date of Filing : 17 Jun 2017 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 18/03/2017 in Case No. CC/85/2015 of District Koraput) 1. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India Jeypore Branch, At/Po- Jeypore, Koraput. ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. Mr. Manoj Kumar Barik S/o- Late Harekrushna Barik, Working as Sr. Clerk, O/o- The Sub Collector, Jeypore, Koraput. 2. The Branch Manager, SBI Life Insurance Co. At- Main Road, Jeypore, Koraput. 3. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India Regional Office, Jeypore, At/Po- Jeypore, Koraput. ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury PRESIDENT PRESENT: M/s. P.V. Balkrishna & Assoc., Advocate for the Appellant 1 M/s. S.K. Baral & Assoc., Advocate for the Respondent 1 M/s. A.K. Mohanty & Assoc., Advocate for the Respondent 1 Dated : 24 Feb 2022 Final Order / Judgement
Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant approached OP No.1 for personal loan of Rs.1,50,000/- which was sanctioned and credited to the account of the complainant on 31.12.2014. It is alleged inter-alia that the complainant found a debit entry of Rs.11,000/- in his SB account on 31.12.2014. On query he found that the complainant's signature obtained in many papers by the OP No.1 and by that the OP No.1 has created one SBI life insurance policy for complainant without his consent and knowledge. The complainant has protested the deduction of money but the OP did not hear same. So, the complaint was filed.
4. The OP No.1 filed the written version stating that whenever the loan is granted to meet one's emergency. Accordingly, in the case of the complainant, the documents has been prepared by the complainant with his signature and premiums have been deducted. So, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1.
5. OP No.2 did not participate in the hearing.
6. OP No.3 filed written version stating that after receiving the proposal form in the name of the complainant, the policy was issued for period of 12 years to the complainant. Apart from this as per the norms the complainant should have opposed the policy purchased within 15 days after which it has became towards sale of the policy. So, as per the condition of policy the money has been deducted. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.3.
7. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx "Hence ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part and the OP No.1 is directed to pay interest at savings bank rate on the amount of 3 premiums from the date of their respective debits till payment and to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation besides Rs.3000/- towards costs to the complainant and he is at liberty to recover the above amount from the erring official on dues process. The OP No.3 is directed to pay the paid up value with benefits to the complainant treating the policy as surrendered. The above directions are to be complied by the parties within 30 days from the date of communication of this order failing which the paid up value shall accrue interest @ 12 % p.a. from the date of this order."
8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant has voluntarily submitted proposal form when obtained loan from OP No.1. But learned District Forum as failed to understand those facts. According to him learned District Forum has committed error in law without going through the written version filed by the OP. He further submitted that as usual practice whenever loan is obtained,the policy of such financial institution is normally purchased by the loanee so as to deduct the premium from the account. Since the complainant has voluntarily accepted the policy, learned District Forum has not passed the impugned order. Therefore, he submitted to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submitted that after receiving the proposal form have issued the policy and as per the terms of the policy premium has been debited from the account of the complainant and deposited with the OP No.3. He has not preferred any appeal and he supports the case of OP No.1. Further, he submitted that the policy has been surrendered.
10. Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.
11. It is for the complainant to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. It is admitted fact that the complainant has incurred loan from the OP. It is also admitted fact that one insurance policy was issued by the OP No.3 to complainant. The proposal form has been filed before the learned District Forum. It is the grievance of the complainant that while filing up of papers for obtaining loan, the document for purchasing policy was issued to the complainant. No doubt the documents shows that premium has been paid for Rs.10,689/- but the proposal form has been filled up by someone other than the complainant as it appears from the proposal form. When the proposal form is doubtful, the contention of the complainant can not be said to be false. However, when the policy has been surrendered there is nothing to dig out more. But it is usual practice for every bank to influence the customer to purchase a policy of their sister concerned without the knowledge of the concerned loanee who obtains loan from the bank. The purpose may be good but without proper convincing the account holder the policy should not be purchased. Therefore, there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1. Learned District Forum has also arrived the same conclusion. Moreover, it is admitted fact that the policy has been surrendered. The premiums have been refunded. When deficiency in service has been reviewed, rest of the order passed by the learned District Forum is unnecessary. Therefore, the order with regard to compensation and the cost are set-aside.
The appeal is partly allowed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as if copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith. [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. D.P. Choudhury] PRESIDENT