ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. V. PADMAJA SIRIPALLI & ANR.
1. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
4TH FLOOR, RED FORT CAPITAL PARSVNATH TOER,
BHAI VEER SINGH MARG, GOLE MARKET,
NEW DELHI-110001
Versus
S/O. PALLAPARAJU, R/O. H.NO. 1-8-499/5, STREET NO. 9,
S.V. TEMPLE STREET CHIKKADPALLY, MUSHEERABAD
HYDERABAD
TELANGANA STATE
2. ICICI BANK LTD.
2ND FLOOR, 5-9-2, JVL TOWERS BEGUMPET
HYDERABAD-500004
TELANGANA
Case No: Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 576 OF 2021
Date of Judgement: 03 Jan 2023
Judges:
For the Petitioners : Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, Advocate with
Ms. Meenakshi S. Devgan, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : In Person
For Respondent No.2 : NEMO
Mr. Antarik Chakraborty, Advocate
For the Petitioner : Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate with
Mr. Antarik Chakraborty, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : In Person
For Respondents No.2 : Mr. Anand Shankar Jha, Advocate with
Ms. Meenakshi S. Devgan, Advocate
Facts
Arguments by Parties
ICICI Bank:
ICICI Lombard General Insurance:
State Commission wrongly directed payment of Rs 9.99 lakh despite terms of policy. Only covers loss of 3 EMIs i.e. Rs 80,220.
Complainant:
Sections
Section 21(b) Revision Petition
Referred Laws
Download Court Copy: https://dreamlaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/16.pdf
Full Text of Judgment:
1. Since facts and the issue involved in both Revision Petitions are same, we dispose of them by a common
order.
2. According to the Petitioner/Insurance Company, Revision Petition No.3221/2017 has been filed with a delay of 70 days. The Petitioner has, therefore, filed IA/15600/2017 an application for condonation of delay. As per report of the Registry, there is no delay in filing the Revision Petition. In the interest of justice, however, IA/15600/2017 is allowed and delay condoned.
“1. To direct the Opposite Parties No.1 to 6 to pay the compensation sum of Rs.9,99,789/- (Nine lakhs ninety nine thousand seven hundred eighty nine only) for the loss incurred to the complainant with 14% interest till the realization of the amount.
2. To pay the cost of the complaint.
3. To award any other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.”
4. The builder and the Commissioner, GHMC were proceeded ex-parte. The Bank and the Insurance Company filed separate written statements. The Bank/Opposite Parties Nos.2 to 4 stated that they disbursed housing loan of Rs.26,83,300/- and the same was to be repaid by the Complainant in 240 monthly instalments of Rs.26,740/- each. The Complainant started defaulting in payment of instalments from December, 2008 onwards. The Bank sent several letters and reminders to the Complainant. The Bank also sent notice dated 18.09.2009 but the Complainant did not reply. They issued notice dated 17.05.2010 under SARFAESI Act, 2002. The Complainant, however, did not repay the dues. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under SARFAESI proceedings appointed an Advocate Commissioner to take possession of the property of the Complainant. The Advocate Commissioner took possession of the property on 16.12.2010 and handed over the same to the Bank. Thereafter, the Bank sold the property through auction. The Complainant also approached the Banking Ombudsman, who dismissed the Complaint. The Complainant supressed these facts in her Consumer Complaint.
6. After hearing the learned Counsel for the Parties and perusing the record, the District Forum dismissed the Complaint.
“In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the orders of District Consumer Forum, Ranga Reddy dated 13.11.2013 made in CC No.109/2012 and consequently we allow the complaint in part and direct the Opposite Parties 2 to 6 therein to pay a sum of Rs.9,99,789/- to the Complainant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of complaint i.e. 26.06.2012 till realization, with costs of Rs.5,000/-. The Complaint against OP No.1 and 7 is dismissed but with no costs. Time for compliance: 4 weeks.”
8. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the State Commission, Opposite Party/Bank filed Revision Petition No.2324/2017 and Opposite Party ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. filed RP/3221/2017.
9. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Bank submitted that the Consumer Complaint was not maintainable in view of Section 34 read with Section 17 of SARFAESI Act, 2002. As the Complainant failed to repay the loan amount in spite of legal notice, the Bank initiated proceedings under SARFAESI Act, 2002. The remedy available to the Complainant was before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The Agreement was executed on 30.03.2008 and the disbursements were made immediately thereafter. The Consumer Complaint was filed by the Complainant on 26.06.2012, after expiry of more than 4 years.
12. The Respondent/Complainant submitted that the Complainant never approached the Bank for housing loan. The agents of the Bank and the Insurance Company came to the Complainant and took her signatures on blank forms. The Complainant had also not made any request for disbursement of loan amount in the manner alleged by the Bank. It was submitted that the Bank in collusion with the builder create false, bogus and fictitious loan to deceive the innocent people. The Bank also sanctioned the housing loan without verifying the building plan and approved layout. The Insurance Policy also covered the risk of loss of job but they did not honour the claim made by the Complainant due to loss of job.
13. It is relevant to mention that both the Fora below have dismissed the Complaint against the builder. Even before this Commission, the builder has not been made a Party. As the builder has not been made a party, we are not dealing with the allegation of deficiency in service by the builder.
14. The Complainant alleged that she was forced to sign the loan documents. Admittedly, the Complainant was working in a software company at the relevant time and she was not an illiterate. It is also admitted by the Complainant that the loan instalments could not be paid by her due to loss of job. It is Complainant’s own admission that she paid the loan instalments from May, 2008 to February, 2010. Thereafter, she could not pay the instalments due to loss of job. After disbursal of loan amount and repayment of loan instalments for about two years, the Complainant cannot allege that she was forced to sign the loan documents. Had the Complainant been forced to sign the loan documents, she could have made Complaint to the Bank about the same. The Complainant also admitted that she defaulted in repayment of instalments. The Complainant had made bald
allegation that she was forced to sign the loan documents. She has not produced any evidence to substantiate her allegation. The allegation appears to be an afterthought and is accordingly rejected.
15. The Complainant also alleged that the Bank had illegally taken possession and sold the Complainant’s flat. As discussed in the preceding paragraph, the Complainant defaulted in payment of the loan instalments. As the Complainant defaulted the EMIs, the Bank issued loan recall notice dated 18.09.2009 but the Complainant failed to repay the dues. Thereafter, the Bank started proceedings under SARFAESI Act by issuing notice dated 17.05.2010. The Bank also published the notice in Telugu and English newspapers and thereafter auctioned the property. The Bank had, thus, followed the due procedure to recover the loan amount. The allegation of the Complainant that the Bank had illegally taken possession and sold the flat is, therefore, rejected.
“It is stated by Opposite Parties 5 and 6 that the insurance coverage was made as part of the Agreement entered by the complainant. They also filed the policy copy and the risk assumption letter which are marked as Ex.B14 and B15. The complainant admits that she signed on all therelevant documents.”
From the aforesaid, it is clear that the Complainant admitted before the District Forum that she signed on all the relevant documents. After admitting the fact that she signed the relevant documents, the Complainant cannot make the allegation that she had not purchased the Insurance Policy. The allegation is, therefore, rejected.
17. The Complainant also alleged that the Insurance Policy also covered the risk due to loss of job. Perusal of the Insurance Policy makes it clear that the sum insured due to loss of job was 3 EMIs. The Insurance Company was, thus, liable for the amount of 3 EMIs. Admittedly, the EMI was Rs.26,740/-. The Insurance Company was, therefore, liable for payment of Rs.80,220/- (Rs.26,740/- x 3). In the written arguments filed on behalf of the Insurance Company, it is admitted that the liability of the Insurance Company could not be more than Rs.80,220/-.
18. In view of the above, RP/2324/2017 filed by the Bank is allowed, the impugned order qua Bank is set aside and Complaint against the Bank is dismissed. Revision Petition No.3221 of 2017 filed by the Insurance Company is partly allowed. Insurance Company is directed to pay to the bank account of the Complainant an amount of Rs.80,220/- on the Complainant submitting proof of loss of job to the Insurance Company. Order be complied within 2 months. No order as to costs.