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

Most viewed this month

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...

Owner of vehicle is not expected to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount...

Person Being Prosecuted To Be Provided With All Relevant Documents

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Poonam Jain vs Union of India & Ors, noted that a person being prosecuted against has a right to be provided with all the material relied upon by the prosecuting agency to prosecute her/ him. In the instant case, a search was conducted at the residences of the petitioners and their statements were recorded and several documents were seized. They were issued show cause notices under Section 276 C(1) and Section 277 of the Income Tax Act, Section 181 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 50 and 51 of the Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act. They sought to be provided with a copy of their statements and the documents seised. However, the same was denied to them.