Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 233 (UTT)

STATE BANK OF INDIA v. RENU MUKHOPADHYAY

2014-05-27

B.C.KANDPAL, C.C.PANT

body2014
ORDER (Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President): This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 23.09.2010 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 179 of 2010, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint against the appellant – opposite party No. 1 and directed the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the respondent No. 1 – complainant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that late Sh. Ashish Mukhopadhyay, the deceased husband of the complainant – Smt. Renu Mukhopadhyay, was employed with the opposite party No. 1 – State Bank of India, Civil Lines, Roorkee and during his service tenure, he had taken a housing loan of Rs. 5,00,000/-. For securing the said loan, the opposite party No. 1 had prepared a demand draft of Rs. 27,382/- in the name of the opposite party No. 2 – SBI Life Insurance Company Limited towards insurance premium amount of the complainant and the said demand draft was sent by the opposite party No. 1 to the opposite party No. 2. However, the husband of the complainant expired on 22.09.2009. The complainant wrote a letter to the bank for recovering the loan amount from the insurance company. The bank wrote a letter dated 19.03.2010, stating therein that they do not have any record with regard to the insurance of the deceased husband of the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. 3. The bank filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that they had advanced housing loan to the deceased husband of the complainant on 12.08.2004; that the proposal for SBI Life Group Insurance was submitted on 05.07.2008; that there are dues of Rs. 5,28,581/- against the deceased husband of the complainant towards reimbursement of housing loan; that the premium amount of Rs. 27,382/- was remitted to the insurance company on 15.05.2008; that the deceased husband of the complainant had not submitted the health questionnaire and, as such, the insurance company has returned the proposal along with the demand draft towards premium amount, which fact was duly informed to the deceased husband of the complainant and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 4. 4. The insurance company also filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the deceased husband of the complainant was not insured with them; that the proposer had not submitted the Common Health Questionnaire along with the proposal form and hence the proposal was rejected and the demand draft was returned to the bank on 06.08.2008; that the deceased husband of the complainant did not submit the required documents and that there is no deficiency in service on their part. 5. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 23.09.2010 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the bank has filed this appeal. 6. None appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2 – insurance company. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent No. 1 – complainant in person and have also perused the record. We have also gone through the written arguments dated 08.10.2013 filed by the learned counsel for respondent No. 1 – complainant. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the deceased husband of the complainant had taken the housing loan from the appellant – bank and for securing the loan, he was proposed to be insured with the insurance company and the demand draft of Rs. 27,382/- was sent by the bank to the insurance company on 15.05.2008. However, on account of non-submission of Common Health Questionnaire by the deceased husband of the complainant, the proposal of insurance was turned down by the insurance company and the demand draft was returned to the bank on 06.08.2008. The deceased husband of the complainant expired on 22.09.2009 and had the bank intimated this fact in time to the deceased husband of the complainant, he could have submitted the Common Health Questionnaire with the insurance company and got himself insured under the relevant insurance policy. 8. The deceased husband of the complainant expired on 22.09.2009 and had the bank intimated this fact in time to the deceased husband of the complainant, he could have submitted the Common Health Questionnaire with the insurance company and got himself insured under the relevant insurance policy. 8. From the perusal of the record, it is evident that the amount of premium was credited by the bank in the account of the deceased husband of the complainant on 06.11.2009, i.e., after his death on 22.09.2009, whereas the insurance company had returned the said amount on 06.08.2008, but the bank kept the said amount with it from 06.08.2008 to 06.11.2009, i.e., for a period of 15 months’ and did not credit the same in account of the deceased husband of the complainant. The bank has not given any explanation/reasoning as to why the said amount was withheld by it for such a long period. Thus, there has certainly been deficiency in service on the part of the bank and the view to that effect taken by the District Forum can not be said to be unjustified. 9. So far as the quantum of compensation awarded by the District Forum is concerned, we are of the considered view that the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the District Forum is certainly on a higher side and the same need to be reduced to Rs. 25,000/-. This way, the appeal succeeds partly and is to be allowed accordingly. 10. In view of above, appeal is partly allowed. Order impugned dated 23.09.2010 passed by the District Forum is modified and the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum is reduced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 25,000/-. No order as to costs.