Shriram City Union Finance Ltd vs Ashatai

V.K. Jain, J

The case of the complainant/respondent is that her husband late Sh. Anand Duparte had taken a personal loan of Rs.2 lacs from the petitioner and that for securing the said loan, the petitioner had obtained an insurance policy deducting the premium for the said policy from the loan amount. The husband of the complainant having died on 17.03.2015, within about 18 days of availing the loan, the petitioner sought repayment of the loan amount. Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a Consumer Complaint alleging therein that it was the petitioner company which had to obtain an insurance policy in respect of the loan taken by her deceased husband. She therefore, sought stay of recovery of loan alongwith compensation.

The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which denied having deducting the premium for the insurance policy for the loan amount or having accepted any premium from the deceased in obtaining the insurance policy in his favour.

The District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner not to recover the loan amount. The petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as the cost of litigation to the complainant.

Being aggrieved, from the order passed by the District Forum, the petitioner approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.

The legal notice sent by the complainant to the petitioner, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:

That the father of my client namely Anand Duparte was having his own plot in Pandurang Nagar, Namaskar Chowk, Nanded. He was in need of the loan amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lacs only) for the construction of house on his plot. Said Anand Digamber Duparte has come towards your finance and requested to give the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lac). As you does the business of providing the finance, has shown readyness and have obtained the relevant documents alongwith the D.D. of amount of Rs.400/- in respect of General Insurance and sanctioned the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rs.Two lacs).

That at the time of sanctioning the loan and prior to crediting the amount of Rs.1,97,880/- in the account of said Anand Duparte. Your finance has deducted the amount towards personal Accident benefit policy of Rs.2,00,000/- of said Anand Duparte. At the time of obtaining the documents from said Anand Duparte your finance has also obtained the blank cheques duly signed by Anand Digamber Duparte of his account no.52068676621 of S.B.H. Branch Shivaji Nagar, Nanded.

It would thus be seen that contradictory stand has been taken in the said legal notice as regards payment of premium in the said policy. In para 2 of the reply to the notice, it is stated that Demand Draft of Rs.400/- was taken whereas allegation in para 4 of the notice is that the premium was deducted by the petitioner. However, there is no document evidencing receipt of any Demand Draft by the petitioner from the deceased husband of the complainant towards payment of premium in an insurance policy to recover the loan taken by him. There is no evidence of any deduction of the said premium from the loan account of the deceased husband of the complainant. In the absence of any such document, it would be difficult to accept that the petitioner had either deducted the premium in respect of an insurance policy from the loan account or that it had received the said premium from the deceased husband of the complainant. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to be negligent in rendering services to the complainant or her deceased husband. The orders passed by the fora below therefore, cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. The complaint is consequently dismissed with no order as to costs.

A demand draft of Rs.10,000/- was sent by the petitioner to the complainant towards conveyance charges etc. in compliance of an interim order of this Commission. That demand draft has since expired. The petitioner shall replace the said demand draft within four weeks from today. The expired demand draft has been handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner. A valid demand draft be sent to the learned counsel for the complainant within four weeks from today by Speed Post.