ARCHANA SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in the present writ petition is to the possession notice dated 10.08.2012 (P-7) served by respondent No. 2-State Bank of Patiala from whom late husband of the petitioner has taken loan of Rs. 10 lacs for construction of the house in March, 2010. The respondent-Bank has taken master policy from State Bank of India Life Insurance Company Ltd. (for short 'Life Insurance Company'), which is the group insurance for the benefit on the borrowers availing housing loan from the respondent-Bank. In terms of the policy, the husband of the petitioner was charged a sum of Rs. 36,625/- as the premium when the loan account of the husband of the petitioner was debited on 09.03.2010. Unfortunately, the husband of the petitioner died on 05.11.2012 leaving behind three minor children i.e. one son and two daughters and the present petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is the house wife and had challenged the action initiated by the Bank for recovery of the amount of Rs. 11,11,040.37 lacs as on 21.05.2012 with further interest and incidental expenses in the present writ petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that in fact the husband of the petitioner had paid Rs. 5,99,000/- as per the record of the husband of the petitioner found after his death but still the respondent-Bank is claiming over Rs. 11 lacs from the petitioner. It is also pointed out that the husband of the petitioner has taken a life insurance policy at the instance of the Bank, for which premium was paid, but the benefit of such policy is not being given to the Petitioner. It is contended that if such benefit is given, there will be no outstanding amount from the loan account of her husband.

(3.) In reply, respondent No. 2-Bank has produced the loan application along with other documents and asserted that the deceased failed to maintain the financial discipline in the loan account and the account was declared as Non Performing Assets on 25.02.2012. In view of the said fact, a notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002 (for short 'the Act') was served upon the late husband of the petitioner but since the amount was not deposited, the Bank has rightly initiated proceedings for recovery of the amount by publication of notice in the newspapers, namely, 'Indian Express' and 'Dainik Bhaskar'. It is also pointed out that Bank has tie up with the Life Insurance Company for insurance under the Group Insurance Scheme for the borrowers of the housing loan. The respondent-Bank has debited an amount of Rs. 36,625/- from the loan account and sent the proposal along with the said amount to the Life Insurance Company, but on 16.04.2010, the Life Insurance Company has informed the borrower that questionnaire with regard to health was not filled properly and requested the late husband to send duly filled and signed form. It is, thus, contended that the petitioner is a defaulter of the loan amount and thus, action of the Bank in initiating the recovery proceedings cannot be faulted in any manner.