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

Valuation Report of Jewellery once made is effective for Four Assessment Years

The division Bench of the Delhi High Court in Pr.Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Raghu Hari Dalmia held that a valuation report made by a registered valuer once adopted shall be in effect for four assessment years unless an event has occurred whereby the value is increased or decreased. The High Court made it clear that the event of “search” under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot compel the assessee to undertake a fresh valuation.
2 comments
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

Mere Agreement To Sell The Leased Property To Tenant Would Not Terminate Landlord-Tenant Relationship

In CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 1237­1238 OF 2019, Dr. H.K. Sharma vs Shri Ram Lal, the tenant had objected against the eviction suit filed by the landlord, claiming that the landlord-tenant relationship between them had ceased to exist by virtue of an agreement for sale entered between them and that he has already paid some money in advance based on the agreement. The tenant contented as the landlord-tenant relationship did not exist, the landlord cannot evict him. The matter went through various forums and finally landed before the Supreme Court in appeal. The Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Shah Mathuradas Maganlal & Co. vs. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage & Ors., held that in the instant case the lease agreement included no clauses on the fate of the tenancy. A fortiori, the parties did not intend to surrender the tenancy rights despite entering into an agreement of sale of the tenanted property. In other words, if the parties really intended to surrender their tenancy ...
2 comments
Read more