Skip to main content

SBI asked to pay Rs. 8 lakh in damages

Bank accused of deficiency in service for not informing clients of policy surrender

The district consumer disputes redressal forum (DCDRF)–North has directed State Bank of India (SBI) and its insurance company to pay a compensation of Rs. 8.68 lakh for pre-closing the insurance policies of a consumer without prior information.

The complainants, V. Sree Manikandan and Vanitha Sree Manikandan of R.A. Puram, had taken six single SBI Life Sukh Jeevan policies.

Subsequently, they took a loan of Rs. 12.25 lakh from SBI. They gave their policies as collateral security on April 2, 2002.

In 2011, in response to a letter they sent SBI, the complainants were informed that their policies, whose maturity value was Rs. 25 lakh, had been cancelled way back in 2005, and a sum of Rs. 16.91 lakh had been realised.

After deducting the loan amount and interest, Rs. 85,000 had been transferred to the complainant, said SBI.

The complainants accused the bank of deficiency of service as they were not informed about surrendering the policies. The bank’s counsel claimed the complaint was false. He said the loan amount had to be repaid within a period of three years with interest. However, as the complainant did not make the repayments properly, the policies were surrendered to the insurance company.

The insurance company’s counsel said that since the complainants had assigned the policies in favour of the bank, they had no right over them.

The consumer forum said that surrendering the policies and adjusting the amount towards loan without any instruction from the complainants would amount to deficiency in service.

Pre-closing the policy without informing the customers had caused them a financial loss of Rs. 8.68 lakh and severe mental agony, said the forum, comprising its president R. Mohandoss and members A. Dayalan and T. Kalaiyarasi.

 Article referred: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/chen-society/sbi-asked-to-pay-rs-8-lakh-in-damages/article6229272.ece

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more