JUDGMENT : Manish Choudhury, J. 1. Heard Mr. Sheeladitya, learned counsel for the petitioners; Mr. S. Nath, learned Standing Counsel, Life Insurance Corporation of India [LICI] for the respondent nos. 1–4; and Mr. M. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, United Commercial Bank [UCO Bank] for the respondent nos. 5 & 6. 2. The petitioners, 5 [five] in nos., have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging unfair treatment meted out by the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent LICI authorities in a matter of making settlement of an insurance claim taken in respect of a housing term loan obtained by the petitioner no. 1 and one Debabrat Choudhury. 3. The petitioner no. 1 is the mother of one Debabrat Choudhury and the petitioner no. 2 is a brother of Debabrat Choudhury. The petitioner no. 3 is the wife of Debabrat Choudhury whereas the petitioner no. 4 and the petitioner no. 5 are the minor daughter and the minor son respectively of Debabrat Choudhury. 4. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that the petitioner no. 1 and Debabrat Choudhury had applied for a housing term loan [credit facility] at Paltan Bazar Branch of UCO Bank in the year 2010. The housing term loan was sanctioned under the UCO Griha Lakshmi Yojana Scheme for an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- vide a Sanction Letter dated 30.12.2010. The petitioner no. 1 was a co-applicant with Debabrat Choudhury being the Principal Borrower, for the said housing term loan. As per the Sanction Letter, the loan sanctioned vie Housing Term Loan Account no. 19250810001288 was repayable in 180 equated monthly installments [EMIs], which was subsequently revised to 192 EMIs. The petitioner no. 1 created equitable mortgage over a secured property and the petitioner no. 2 stood as the personal guarantor. Debabrat Choudhury was the Principal Borrower and in that capacity, he had also mortgaged a plot of land measuring 1 Katha 5 Lessas along with a residential building, which is covered by Dag no. 463 & Patta no. 177 [old]/771 [new] and situate at Revenue Village – Gotanagar, Mouza – Jalukbari, Guwahati Revenue Circle, District – Kamrup [‘the mortgaged landed property’, for short]. The mortgaged landed property stands in the name of the petitioner no. 1. 463 & Patta no. 177 [old]/771 [new] and situate at Revenue Village – Gotanagar, Mouza – Jalukbari, Guwahati Revenue Circle, District – Kamrup [‘the mortgaged landed property’, for short]. The mortgaged landed property stands in the name of the petitioner no. 1. The petitioners have stated that the UCO Griha Lakshmi Yojana Scheme consisted of a benefit of insurance coverage for the amount extended towards the housing loan. 5. It is the further case of the petitioners that the applicant, Debabrat Choudhury [‘the Principal Borrower’, for short] along with the petitioner no. 1 deposited a sum of Rs. 28,965/- for the insurance coverage for the housing term loan they had availed. It is stated that the Principal Borrower, Debabrat Choudhury was regular in payment of the EMIs of the housing term loan and the EMIs were deducted from his salary-cum-savings account. Unfortunately, the Principal Borrower, Debabrat Choudhury expired on 27.11.2019. As per the UCO Bank’s Statement of Accounts, the amount payable to the UCO Bank against the housing term loan, as on 30.11.2019, was Rs. 11,42,196/-, as confirmed by Mr. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, UCO Bank at the time of hearing. 6. After the death of Debabrat Choudhury, the respondent no. 6 forwarded the required documents in the form of Annexure-C to the Zonal Manager, UCO Bank vide an Office Letter dated 05.03.2020 for onward submission to the LICI for settlement of the claim amount as per the insurance coverage. A number of documents like Death Certificate of Debabrat Choudhury, LIC Premium Receipt, etc. were forwarded with the Office Letter dated 05.03.2020. The respondent no. 6, on 18.03.2020, submitted the death claim under UCO Griha Lakshmi Yojana Scheme with the respondent no. 4. In the Office Letter dated 18.03.2020, it was inter-alia informed that the housing term loan facility was extended to the Principal Borrower, Debabrat Choudhury for an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- and the loan was sanctioned on 30.12.2020. It was further mentioned that the Housing Term Loan Account no. 19250810001288 was insured under the UCO Griha Lakshmi Yojana Scheme under Master Policy no. GMRA 211589 in the name of the Principal Borrower, Debabrat Choudhury with the start date of risk being 23.04.2011. As the Principal Borrower, Debabrat Choudhury expired on 27.11.2019, the respondent no. It was further mentioned that the Housing Term Loan Account no. 19250810001288 was insured under the UCO Griha Lakshmi Yojana Scheme under Master Policy no. GMRA 211589 in the name of the Principal Borrower, Debabrat Choudhury with the start date of risk being 23.04.2011. As the Principal Borrower, Debabrat Choudhury expired on 27.11.2019, the respondent no. 4 by the Office Letter dated 18.03.2020 on the subject : ‘Death Claim’, was requested to make settlement of the death claim as per the insurance policy. The Office Letter was accompanied by a death claim discharge form, the Death Certificate, premium receipt and NEFT mandate for necessary action at the end of the respondent no. 4. As the insurance claim was not found to have processed at the end of the respondent no. 4, the respondent no. 6 followed it up by written reminders, dated 23.02.2022, dated 30.06.2022 and dated 26.09.2022 respectively. 7. The petitioners came to learn that the death claim as per the insurance coverage under the UCO Griha Lakshmi Yojana Scheme was not processed by the respondent LICI authorities when they were served with a Notice under Section 13 [2] of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest [SARFAESI] Act, 2002 on 17.10.2022 by the Authorized Officer of the respondent UCO Bank demanding an amount of Rs. 14,29,195.58, as on 17.10.2022, inclusive of interest upto 31.05.2022. The Authorized Officer also issued a Demand Notice dated 17.10.2022 to the petitioner no. 2 who stood as a guarantor to the housing term loan under reference demanding the same amount from him. 8. On being served with the Demand Notice dated 17.10.2022, the petitioner no. 1 and the petitioner no. 2 submitted a Reply to the respondent no. 6 on 22.11.2022 stating inter-alia that the housing term loan was covered by insurance coverage extended the UCO Griha Lakshmi Yojana Scheme and as such, the Demand Notice under Section 13 [2] of the SARFAESI Act could not have been issued to them. In their Reply, the two petitioners had highlighted that since the housing term loan was insured under Master Policy no. GMRA 211589 upon deposit of the requisite premium, the two petitioners and the legal heirs of the Principal Borrower, Late Debabrat Choudhury could not have been proceeded under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 9. In their Reply, the two petitioners had highlighted that since the housing term loan was insured under Master Policy no. GMRA 211589 upon deposit of the requisite premium, the two petitioners and the legal heirs of the Principal Borrower, Late Debabrat Choudhury could not have been proceeded under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. 9. Despite the Reply, the respondent UCO Bank authorities instead of giving any consideration to the insurance coverage, proceeded to issue a Possession Notice on 30.12.2022. Aggrieved by issuance of the Demand Notice dated 17.10.2022 and the Possession Notice dated 30.12.2022, the petitioners approached the Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati by preferring an application under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act. The application was registered and numbered as S.A. no. 12/2023. In the application, the events regarding obtaining the housing loan under the insurance coverage of the UCO Griha Lakshmi Yojana Scheme and the death of the Principal Borrower on 27.11.2019 had been highlighted. It was contended that neither the Demand Notice dated 17.10.2022 nor the Possession Notice dated 30.12.2022 was issued or served on all the legal heirs of the Principal Borrower, that is, the applicant nos. 3 – 5 in S.A. no. 12/2023. The respondent UCO Bank submitted its written statement stating inter-alia that they had complied with the procedure prescribed in the SARFAESI Act. 10. The Debts Recovery Tribunal, Guwahati [‘the DRT, Guwahati’, for short] upon hearing the parties and perusal of materials on record, found that the Demand Notice as well as the Possession Notice was neither issued nor served upon the legal heirs of the deceased Principal Borrower, that is, the applicant nos. 3–5. On that count, the DRT, Guwahati recording that the same amounted to violation of Rule 8[1] of the Security Interest Enforcement Rules, 2012, allowed the application, S.A. no. 12/2023 by an Order dated 23.01.2024. Resultantly, the Demand Notice and the Possession Notice stood set aside. 11. In S.A. no. 12/2023, the party-respondent no. 3 herein in the LICI, that is, the Manager [L] & HPF, LICI, Guwahati Divisional Office was impleaded as respondent no. 3. Therein, a Reply Affidavit was submitted by the respondent no. 3. In the Reply Affidavit, the respondent no. Resultantly, the Demand Notice and the Possession Notice stood set aside. 11. In S.A. no. 12/2023, the party-respondent no. 3 herein in the LICI, that is, the Manager [L] & HPF, LICI, Guwahati Divisional Office was impleaded as respondent no. 3. Therein, a Reply Affidavit was submitted by the respondent no. 3. In the Reply Affidavit, the respondent no. 3 had admitted about the insurance coverage taken by the Principal Borrower with it under the UCO Griha Lakshmi Yojana Scheme and also about the insurance claim forwarded by the respondent UCO Bank authorities to it. The stand taken in the Reply Affidavit of the respondent no. 3 in S.A. no. 12/2023 would be adverted to in the later part of the order. 12. After disposal of S.A. no. 12/2023 on 23.01.2024, the petitioners approached the respondent no. 2 with an application dated 16.09.2024 to settle the insurance claim taken by the Principal Borrower for the housing term loan and to credit the settlement amount directly to the housing term loan account maintained at Paltan Bazar Branch of the UCO Bank. When no discernible steps were found to have been taken by the respondent LICI authorities in response to the application dated 16.09.2024 and continued reminders were given by the respondent UCO Bank authorities to settle the amount remaining outstanding against the housing term loan account, the petitioners have approached this Court by this writ petition. 13. The first issue which has fallen for determination is whether the Principal Borrower at the time of obtaining the housing term loan under the UCO Griha Lakshmi Yojana Scheme had complied with the requisite procedure required on his part for taking the insurance coverage for the housing term loan for the sum of Rs. 15,00,000/- or not. From the materials on record, it has emerged that the respondent UCO Bank authorities had received a sum of Rs. 28,965/- as premium towards the insurance coverage for the housing term loan facility extended to the Principal Borrower. It is not the case of the respondent UCO Bank authorities that it did not receive the requisite premium for the insurance coverage under the UCO Griha Lakshmi Yojana Scheme. It is the specific stand of the respondent UCO Bank authorities that it had received a sum of Rs. It is not the case of the respondent UCO Bank authorities that it did not receive the requisite premium for the insurance coverage under the UCO Griha Lakshmi Yojana Scheme. It is the specific stand of the respondent UCO Bank authorities that it had received a sum of Rs. 28,965/- from the Principal Borrower toward the premium of the insurance coverage for the housing term loan and it forwarded the said sum of Rs. 28,965/- against the housing term loan amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- extended to the Principal Borrower, Late Debabrat Choudhury by way of a Demand Draft/Bankers’ Cheque bearing no. 004602 dated 23.04.2011 through a Summary-Sheet to the respondent no. 4 on 23.04.2011. The respondent UCO Bank authorities did not attribute any default on the part of the Principal Borrower, Late Debabrat Choudhury on that count. In view of such uncontroverted facts, it is evidently clear that all the requisite formalities were completed by Debabrat Choudhury [since deceased] as the Principal Borrower to have the housing term loan covered by the insurance policy under the UCO Griha Lakshmi Yojana Scheme. 14. In view of above scenario, the next issue that is required to be considered is whether the respondent UCO Bank authorities had followed the formalities required to get the insurance coverage under the UCO Griha Lakshmi Yojana Scheme for the Principal Borrower. The materials on record go to indicate that the respondent no. 6 had taken insurance coverage for the housing term loan extended by it under Master Policy no. GMRA 211589. In the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent nos. 5 & 6, it has been stated that two nos. of demand drafts, bearing nos. 004602 and 004603 were forwarded to the respondent LICI authorities in April, 2011 and the respondent LICI authorities acknowledged the receipt of the same vide a Deposit Memorandum under Transaction no. 243 dated 05.05.2011. 15. The respondent LICI authorities have filed an affidavit-in-opposition and an affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 5 & 6. In the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent nos. 1–4 filed through the respondent no. 3 as the deponent, it has been averred that in order to settle the claim against Policy no. GMRA 211589 on the life of Debabrat Choudhury against Housing Term Loan Account no. 19250810001288 of UCO Bank, the respondent no. 5 & 6. In the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent nos. 1–4 filed through the respondent no. 3 as the deponent, it has been averred that in order to settle the claim against Policy no. GMRA 211589 on the life of Debabrat Choudhury against Housing Term Loan Account no. 19250810001288 of UCO Bank, the respondent no. 3 addressed Office Letters dated 15.10.2024, dated 05.11.2024 & dated 14.11.2024 respectively to the Regional Office, UCO Bank, Guwahati stating that the LICI had received an amount of Rs. 59,805/- on 05.05.2011 vide Transaction No. 243 and the said amount of Rs. 59,805/- was encased in time. After receipt of Rs. 59,805/-, the said amount was adjusted as under :- A. Kanta Kanti and Kohi Ram Das Rs. 29,416.75 Receipt no. 243 Adjt no. 1529 dated 26.11.2011. B. Jagadish Pathak Rs. 16,605.00 Receip no. 243 Adjt no. 1553 dated 20.12.2011. C. Dipak Malla Bujarbaruah Rs. 13,783.25 Receipt no. 243 Adjt no. 1690 dated 28.12.2011. 16. Against such stand taken by the respondent LICI authorities, the respondent UCO Bank authorities had highlighted that a total amount of Rs. 59,805/- was forwarded vide two demand drafts/bankers cheques bearing no. 004602 dated 23.04.2011 for an amount of Rs. 28,985/- and no. 004603 dated 23.04.2011 for an amount of Rs. 30,840/-. But, instead of adjusting the said two separate amounts against the two insured persons named in the Summary-Sheet including Debabrat Choudhury, the respondent LICI authorities had adjusted the said amount of Rs. 59,805/- against three other persons by way of three instruments of Rs. 29,416/- dated 26.11.2011, Rs. 16,605/- dated 20.12.2011 and Rs. 13,783/- dated 28.12.2011 respectively. By an Office Letter dated 13.11.2024, the respondent no. 6 sought an explanation from the respondent no. 4 as to the reason for adjusting the amount of Rs. 59,805/- against three other persons. 17. The contents of the Letter dated 13.11.2024 of the respondent no. 6 are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference :- With reference to your letter dated 05.11.2024 regarding policy no. GMRA 211589 UCO Griha Lakshmi Yojana Scheme on behalf of Late Debabrat Choudhury. We would like to inform you that as per the printed receipt [Receipt no. 243 dated 05.05.2011 Branch Code – G-404 Division Code – 048/G404 Time 14:41:12] provided by LIC, which is available with us, it shows different. It shows two policies, one of which matches without borrower. We would like to inform you that as per the printed receipt [Receipt no. 243 dated 05.05.2011 Branch Code – G-404 Division Code – 048/G404 Time 14:41:12] provided by LIC, which is available with us, it shows different. It shows two policies, one of which matches without borrower. Details of cheques Received 4602 23.04.2011 Uco Bank GHY 28965 4603 23.04.2011 Uco Bank GHY 30840 We have already attached the copy of the deposit memorandum for your information and further obligation in the last letter. As per your letter dated 05.10.2024, you have informed us that you have issued us 3 policies A. Kanta Kakati and Kohi Ram Das 29416.75 Receipt no. 243 Adjt no. 1529 Dated 26.11.2 011 B. Jagadish Pathak 166005 Receipt no. 243 Adjt no. 1553 Dated 20.12.2 011 Dipak Malla D. Bujarbaruah 13783.25 Receipt no. 243 Adjt no. 1690 Dated 28.12.2 011 Kindly give us the detailed information of the 2 number of drafts that we provided you in the month of April 2011. You have been sending us the information of drafts issued in November and December 2011. Since draft/cheques expire in 6 months maximum, so we assume the policy has to be issued before October 2011. So we would like to request you kindly check before reverting back to us with same 3 policies of Nov/Dec 2011. We have send you the detailed statement of our borrower, from whom Rs. 28,965/- amount was deducted on 23.04.2011 and the same amount of Draft that you have received from LIC [P&GS Scheme Deptt] on 05.05.2011 invoice no. 048/G404. Kindly look into this matter urgently and settle the loan promptly. 18. On receipt of the Letter dated 13.11.2024 of the respondent no. 6, the respondent no. 4 responded on 14.11.2024 informing as under :- Re : Policy no. GMRA 211589 on the life Debabrat Choudhury Housing loan Account no. 19250810001288 UCO Bank With reference to your letter dated 13.11.2024, regarding Policy no. GMRA 211589 UCO Griha Laxmi Yojona Scheme on behalf of Debabrat Choudhury we are to inform you that we have received an amount of Rs. 59,805.00 on 05.05.2011 vide Tr. No. 243 and subsequent the amount of Rs. 59,805.00 [Rupees Fifty Nine thousand eight hundred five only] was encashed in time. 1. The dates 26.11.2011, 20.12.2011 and 28.12.2011 are our Adjustment dates, so the point of expiry adjustments said draft does not arise. 2. 59,805.00 on 05.05.2011 vide Tr. No. 243 and subsequent the amount of Rs. 59,805.00 [Rupees Fifty Nine thousand eight hundred five only] was encashed in time. 1. The dates 26.11.2011, 20.12.2011 and 28.12.2011 are our Adjustment dates, so the point of expiry adjustments said draft does not arise. 2. From that amount of Rs. 59,805.00 [Rupees Fifty Nine thousand eight hundred five only] the following adjustments were made on the life of A. Kanta Kakati and Kohi Ram Das Rs. 29416.75 Receipt no. 243 Adjt no. 1529 dated 26.11.2011 B. Jagadish Pathak Rs. 16605.00 Receipt no. 243 Adjt no. 1553 dated 20.12.2011 C. Dipak Malla Bujarbaruah Rs. 13783.25 Receipt no. 243 Adjt no. 1690 dated 28.12.2011 Which we have already communicated to you vide our letter dated 05.11.2024 We again repeat that we have no record in the name of Debabrat Choudhury in our record. In this regard we are to inform you to kindly submit us acceptance of Insurance Letter on the life of Debabrat Choudhury on behalf of Life Insurance Corporation of India against Policy no. 211589, if any. 19. In this connection, it is pertinent to refer to the Summary-Sheet issued by the respondent no. 6 under the UCO Griha Lakshmi Yojana Scheme, for the week ended on 23.04.2011, : - UCO Griha Laskhmi Yojana Scheme Summary sheet for the week ended as on 23.04.2011 1. Master Policy no : 211589 2. Branch Name : PALTAN BAZAR Branch Code : 1925 3. Regional Office Name : GUWAHATI 4. Details of Person joined in the scheme during the week. Sl No 1 2 Membership No 211589 211589 A/C No 19250610001288 19250610001271 Name Debabrat Choudhury Mrs. Sobha Devi Dubey Loan Amt Rs. 15,00,000.- Rs. 15,00,000/- Tenure [TL] 192 M 180 M Date of Loan 30.12.2010 29.12.2010 DOB 01.03.1974 15.03.1972 Age 37 39 Premium Rs. 28965/- Rs. 30840/- DOJ 23.04.2011 23.04.11 Amount remitted to Zonal Office : 1. DD Number : 004602 for Rs. 28965/- dated 23.04.2011 2. DD Number : 004603 for Rs. 30840/- dated 23.04.2011 Dated : 23.04.2011 Signature of Branch manager 20. A Deposit Memorandum was generated by the respondent no. 2 under Invoice no. 048/G404 and Transaction no. 243 dated 05.05.2011. As per the Deposit Memorandum, two instruments for Rs. 59,805/- from the UCO Bank, Guwahati were received for Master Policy no. MGRA 211589. The details of the two instruments received by the respondent no. A Deposit Memorandum was generated by the respondent no. 2 under Invoice no. 048/G404 and Transaction no. 243 dated 05.05.2011. As per the Deposit Memorandum, two instruments for Rs. 59,805/- from the UCO Bank, Guwahati were received for Master Policy no. MGRA 211589. The details of the two instruments received by the respondent no. 2 were recorded in the Deposit Memorandum in the following manner :- Details of Cheques Received [Subject To Realisation] 4602 23.04.2011 UCO Bank GHY 28885.00 4603 23.04.2011 UCO Bank GHY 30840.00 21. From the Summary-Sheet, it is evidently clear that an amount of Rs. 28,965/-which was forwarded by the respondent UCO Bank vide Demand Draft/Bankers Cheque bearing no. 004602 dated 23.04.2011 was meant for the housing term loan extended to Debabrat Choudhury for the housing term loan amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- having a tenure of 192 EMIs, sanctioned on 30.12.2010. When the particulars of the Summary-Sheet are compared with the Deposit Memorandum issued by the respondent no. 2, extracted above, the only conclusion which can be drawn is that the LICI authorities had received the Demand Draft/Banker Cheque bearing no. 004602 dated 23.04.2011 for an amount of Rs. 28,965/-. It has been admitted by the respondent nos. 1–4 in their affidavit-in-opposition itself that the amount of Rs. 59,805/- which consisted of the amount of Rs. 28,965/- vide Demand Draft/Banker Cheque no. 004602 dated 23.04.2011, was encashed in time. 22. The explanation sought to be provided regarding adjustment of the amount of Rs. 59,805/- vide two Demand Drafts/Bankers Cheque bearing no. 004602 and Draft no. 004603, through three instruments against three other persons in the month of November and December, 2011, is found to be not convincing at all to justify non-settlement of the insurance claim made for the Principal Borrower, Debabrat Choudhury. 23. At this stage, it is apposite to reproduce the relevant excerpts from the Reply Affidavit filed by the respondent LICI authorities in S.A. no. 12/2023 before the DRT, Guwahati :- 2. That having perused the application and the connecting documents in connection with the insurance and the oral submissions made in connection thereof before this Hon'ble Tribunal, the competent authority of the respondent no. 3 have deliberated on the issue and also the insurance claim forwardings by the respondent bank to the Life Insurance Corporation of India [respondent no. That having perused the application and the connecting documents in connection with the insurance and the oral submissions made in connection thereof before this Hon'ble Tribunal, the competent authority of the respondent no. 3 have deliberated on the issue and also the insurance claim forwardings by the respondent bank to the Life Insurance Corporation of India [respondent no. 3], It has been decided by the said competent authority in principle to release the insurance claim of the deceased borrower as per the terms and conditions of the policy and release the same to the respondent bank towards settlement of the claim of the bank under coverage of the policy. 3. That the deponent submits that since the insurance policy claim amount cannot be outrightly paid / released directly to the respondent bank owing to the pendency of the SARFAESI application and also the fact remains that the entire matter is subjudiced before this Hon'ble Tribunal, it would be fitness of things and appropriate that this Hon'ble Tribunal may pass an order accordingly directing the respondent no. 3 to release the claim settlement amount of the housing insurance directly to respondent bank [i.e. UCO Bank] for proper and appropriate adjustment of the said loan amount under coverage of the insurance policy for proper and appropriate adjustment of housing term loan account of the deceased borrower and further on such receipt and adjustment, the respondent bank may also be directed to provide a valid receipt to that effect to the respondent no. 3 [i.e. Life Insurance Corporation]. 4. That the respondent no. 3 further submits that there were no laches or negligence on the part of the respondent no. 3 or its officers in not settling the insurance claim earlier [in absence of subsequent communications or follow-ups from the respondent bank in the matter concerned and also the fact remains that there was genuine unavoidable procedural delay] but for the facts and circumstances as stated above which were beyond the control of the respondent no. 3. 5. That this affidavit may be treated as a declaration for the purpose of settlement of the insurance claim of the deceased borrower to the extent under policy coverage and terms and conditions thereof and the release/payment to the respondent bank of which is subject to the appropriate order and directions by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 24. 3. 5. That this affidavit may be treated as a declaration for the purpose of settlement of the insurance claim of the deceased borrower to the extent under policy coverage and terms and conditions thereof and the release/payment to the respondent bank of which is subject to the appropriate order and directions by this Hon'ble Tribunal. 24. It is evidently clear from the materials brought on record that the respondent LICI authorities had received the amount of Rs. 28,905/- meant for insurance coverage to be extended to the Principal Borrower, Late Debabrat Choudhury against Housing Loan Account no. 19250810001288 for the housing term loan amount of Rs. 15,00,000/- under the UCO Griha Lakshmi Yojana Scheme of the respondent UCO Bank. Therefore, there cannot be any valid justification on the part of the respondent LICI authorities not to extend the insurance coverage under reference and not to settle the insurance claim. 25. Both the respondent LICI and the respondent UCO Bank are instrumentalities of the State within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The State or its instrumentality must act in a manner that is fair, reasonable and non- arbitrary. An instrumentality of the State which comes under the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution and its officials must not be unfair and unreasonable in their dealings with the citizens. After the stand taken before the DRT, Guwahati, it is not open for the respondent LICI authorities either to deny or to delay the statement of the insurance claim. 26. From the discussion made above, it has emerged that non-settlement of the insurance claim coverage is clearly attributable to the unjust and unreasonable actions on the part of the respondent LICI authorities. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be made liable to make payment of the outstanding dues against the Housing Term Loan Account no. 19250810001288 which fell due either on 30.11.2019 or are any time thereafter and it is the respondent LICI authorities who were liable on 30.11.2019 or at any time thereafter to make settlement of the outstanding loan amount payable to the respondent UCO Bank authorities. It is, therefore, directed that the respondent LICI authorities shall make settlement of the outstanding loan amount payable against the Housing Loan Account no. 19250810001288 within a period of one month from the date of submission of a copy of this order at the office of the respondent no. It is, therefore, directed that the respondent LICI authorities shall make settlement of the outstanding loan amount payable against the Housing Loan Account no. 19250810001288 within a period of one month from the date of submission of a copy of this order at the office of the respondent no. 3 by the respondent no. 6. It is further made clear that henceforth, neither the respondent LICI authorities nor the UCO Bank authorities shall make any claim as regards any outstanding dues against the Housing Loan Account no. 19250810001288 from the petitioners. 27. As the title deed and other documents of the mortgaged landed property submitted at the time of creating equitable mortgage are in the custody of the respondent UCO Bank authorities, the respondent no. 6 shall deliver the same to the petitioner nos. 1 & 2 within a month from the date of submission of a copy of this order to the respondent no. 6. 28. With the observations made and the directions given above, the writ petition is disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.