AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.—The husband of the petitioner had availed a housing loan of Rupees Five lakhs from the first respondent Bank in February 2008, on the strength of security interest created over the property belonging to the petitioner, who stood as a guarantor. The case of the petitioner is that, the borrower i.e. husband of the petitioner suddenly fell ill and took his last breath on 16.08.2010, pursuant to a cardiac arrest. By virtue of availability of an insurance policy, the petitioner preferred a claim before the fourth respondent/Insurer, which however was repudiated as per Ext. P4, in turn driving the petitioner to prefer Ext. P7 complaint before the 5th respondent/Insurance Ombudsman, where the same is stated as still pending. It is in the meanwhile, that the Bank proceeded with steps under the SARFAESI Act, which made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition.
The learned counsel for the first respondent Bank, with reference to the counter affidavit filed, submits that, the Bank has complied with all the statutory formalities in proceeding with steps under the SARFAESI Act and as such, the challenge raised against Exts. P8 and P9 is not liable to be entertained. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the petitioner does not dispute the liability in any manner and that the attempt of the petitioner is only to get the insurance amount due to be paid to the petitioner, which could directly be deposited before the Bank, to have the liability set off, to the extent possible.
The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the respondent Bank has already contacted the Insurance Company, who informed that the claim is not liable to be entertained as the ''Policy'' was taken suppressing the pre- existing ailment. In response to this, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is absolutely no merit or bonafides in the said contention raised by the Insurance Company, which in turn is challenged by filing Ext. P7 complaint before the 5th respondent. It is also stated that death was two years after taking the Policy, when the burden is heavy upon the Insurer, in view of the settled position of law. The learned counsel adds that there is every chance to have the claim allowed and that the petitioner is ready and willing to remit the entire amount to be procured, in the loan account. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that since there is no dispute with regard to the liability, the petitioner might be permitted to clear the same in a phased manner.
Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds it fit and proper to permit the petitioner to clear the entire liability by way of reasonable installments. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to clear the entire outstanding liability by way of ''eight'' equal monthly installments; the first of which shall be effected on before the 10th of August, 2012; to be followed by similar installments to be effected on or before the 10th of the succeeding months. Subject to this, the recovery proceedings stated as being pursued against the petitioner shall be kept in abeyance for the time being. It is made clear that, if the petitioner commits any default in remitting the installments as above, the respondent Bank will be at liberty to proceed with further steps for realization of the entire amount in lump, from the stage where it stands now.
Despite completion of service of notice to the 4th respondent Insurer, no counter affidavit has been filed from their side as to the actual facts and figures. In the said circumstances, the 5th respondent is directed to consider and finalize Ext. P7 complaint preferred by the petitioner, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
The Writ Petition is disposed of.