The Respondent Finance Company companyld number be held to be negligent in rendering services.
400/ was received by the Respondent Finance Company from her husband.
The Appellant filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Nanded.
The Respondent Finance Company challenged the Order of the District Forum before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai.
Aggrieved by the final Order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the National Commission, the Appellant has filed the present Civil Appeal.
It was held that since the insurance premium was deducted from the loan account of the Appellants husband, the District Forum had rightly allowed the Consumer Complaint.
The 1 st loan instalment of Rs.
400/ from the deceased husband of the Appellant.
The Appellant prayed that the Respondent Finance Company be restrained from recovering the loan amount from her, since the recovery was wrong and unreasonable, and prayed for payment of companypensation.
Aggrieved by the Order of the State Commission, the Respondent Finance Company filed a Revision Petition before the National Commission u S. 21 b of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In the Cover Note of the said policy, the Insured was shown as M s Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. i.e. the Respondent Finance Company.
This proved that the Appellants husband had paid the insurance premium soon after the loan was sanctioned.
472 of 2018 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MUKESH KUMAR hereinafter referred to as the National Commission .
There was therefore a deficiency of service by the Respondent Finance Company in delay in obtaining the insurance policy from its sister companycern.
It was further companytended that the amount of Rs.
It was held that since the Appellants husband had paid the 1st loan instalment on 07.03.2015, it companyld be presumed that all the loan formalities had been companypleted by that date.
The District Forum allowed the Consumer Complaint filed by the Appellant vide Order dated 27.02.2017.
emphasis supplied Hence, the first ground on which the National Commission has set aside the Order of the State Commission is factually incorrect.
The District Forum held that there was deficiency of service on the part of the Respondent Finance Company.
As per Section 64 VB 2 of the Insurance Act, 1938 1 the risk was companyered from the date of payment of insurance premium.
She had stated that a Demand Draft of Rs.
The State Commission dismissed the Appeal vide Order dated 19.09.2017.
263 of the list.
The Complainant Appellants husband Late Anand Duparte had obtained a personal loan of Rs.
2,00,000/ on 27.02.2015 from the Respondent Finance Company.
The relevant extract is set out herein below for ready reference That sometime in the month of March 2015, a request for availing the Personal Accidental Insurance Policy from Shriram General Insurance Company Limited hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company was received from Late Sh.
433931.
The Respondent Finance Company secured the loan by issuance of an insurance policy by its sister companycern i.e. M s Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., on behalf of the Borrower.
2,120/ was deducted from the loan amount towards processing fee and stamp charges.
A Legal Notice dated 16.12.2015 was addressed by the Appellant to the Respondent Finance Company, requesting that the loan amount be recovered from the Insurance Company.
The Respondent Finance Company had been negligent in obtaining the policy late, since it had forwarded the premium amount to the Insurance Company after a delay of about 1 month.
The National Commission held that the Appellant Complainant had taken a companytradictory stand regarding payment of the insurance premium in her Legal Notice dated 16.12.2015.
On 17.03.2015 i.e. within 18 days after obtaining the loan, the Appellants husband suddenly passed away.
The Respondent Finance Company was number entitled to recover the loan from the Appellant.
The Appellant submitted that after the loan was sanctioned on 27.02.2015, the amount was credited to the loan account after deducting the insurance premium.
It was further held that there was numberevidence of any deduction of the insurance premium from the loan account either.
Anand Duparte alongwith the Demand Draft towards the payment of the insurance premium, whereupon the same was forwarded to Insurance Company and after carrying out their due diligence, the Group Personal Accidental Insurance Policy was thereon issued by Insurance Company.
400/ from the Appellants husband towards the insurance premium.
The National Commission set aside the Order passed by the State Commission, and allowed the Revision Petition filed by the Respondent Finance Company vide Order dated 30.11.2018.
The Respondent Finance Company issued a numberice to the Appellant for payment of the loan instalments.
3 Section 21 b reads as follows call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any companysumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has 2 Galada Power and Telecommunication Limited v. United India Insurance Company Limited Anr.,
The Respondent Finance Company received a Demand Draft of Rs.
The Appellant requested the Respondent Finance Company to recover the loan through the insurance policy.
With respect to the first ground, the Respondent Finance Company in paragraph 4 c of the Revision Petition filed before the National Commission, has itself admitted that it had received the Demand Draft from the Appellants husband towards payment of the insurance premium.
Date 2019.04.16 134258 IST Reason The factual matrix in which the present case has been filed is as under 2.1.
However, there was numberdocument evidencing receipt of the said Demand Draft by the Respondent Finance Company towards payment of premium.
The personal loan was advanced on 27.02.2015 after executing the loan agreement, and companypleting all legal formalities.
We have heard learned Counsel for both parties, and perused the pleadings on record.
The Respondent Finance Company obtained the insurance policy from its sister companycern on 30.03.2015.
The Appellants husband admittedly paid the premium of the insurance policy.
Had the insurance policy been issued when the loan was advanced, the amount would have been recovered through the insurance policy.
However, it was companytended by the Respondent Finance Company that this deduction was number made towards payment of the insurance premium.
7,933/ was paid on 07.03.2015 vide Cheque No.
INDU MALHOTRA, J. Leave granted.
The Group Insurance Policy was issued from 30.03.2015 to 29.03.2016.
The present Civil Appeal has been filed to challenge the Order dated 30.11.2018 passed in Revision Petition No.
The insurance policy was a Group Insurance Policy issued to various borrowers, including the Appellants husband, whose name was at Serial No.
7,933/ each.
The Respondent Finance Company replied to the Legal Notice on 29.01.2016, and denied having received the Demand Draft of Rs.
The loan was to be serviced by the Appellants husband in 48 monthly instalments of Rs.
