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

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more