K. BALARAMA SARMA & ANR. S/O LATE RAMA RAO, R/O D.NO. 42 Vs. CHIEF MANAGER, ANDHRA BANK MAIN BRANCH, RR APPA RAO STREET, I TOWN, VIJAYAWADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition under Sec. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act "), is directed against a common order dated 16.04.2015, passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short the State Commission ") in First Appeals No.50 and 67 of 2014, filed by the Complainants and the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint viz. Andhra Bank, dismissing both the Appeals. By means of these Appeals, the parties had questioned the correctness of the order dated 06.01.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, II, Vijayawada (for short the District Forum ") in Complaint No.153 of 2013. By the said order, the District Forum, while partly accepting the Complaint and recording a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank in not apprising the Complainants of another Insurance Scheme, namely, ‘Liability Insurance of Housing, Education and Vehicle Loans’ (for short the Scheme "), had directed the Bank to pay to the Complainants a sum of Rs. 50,000.00 towards compensation along with a sum of Rs. 3,000.00 as costs with the default stipulation of payment of interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the said order till realization.

(2.) On 21.01.2012, the Complainants, being wife and husband, along with their son had obtained from the Bank, home loan amounting to Rs.14,45,000.00Unfortunately, their son, namely, Satya Siva Kumar, died in a motor vehicle accident on 21.04.2012. The claim amount awarded to them under the Motor Vehicles Act was directly credited to their loan account. Later, they learnt that due to the death of the co-borrower, their liability towards the home loan could be discharged by M/s India First Life Insurance Company Limited (for short IFLIC), in case they had exercised option under the Scheme. Under the Scheme, the risk coverage was extended to the lonees on payment of premium in one lump sum, which was to be calculated on the basis of the age of the borrower, repayment period and the loan amount. The cover was extendable to the existing uncovered and new accounts. It was an optional Scheme and the intending borrowers were required to submit ‘Sanction-cum-Authorization & Simple Health Declaration Form’ to join the Scheme. The salient features of the Scheme were communicated by the Bank to all its branches vide Circular dated 20.05.2010.

(3.) It was the case of the Complainants that had the said Scheme been brought to their notice, they would have availed of it by exercising the requisite option and making deposit of the premium amount, and on the death of their son, the loan obtained by them would been have discharged under the Scheme. In nut shell their case was that having failed to inform them about the said Scheme, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank and therefore, it was liable to compensate them for the loss suffered by them on account of non-adjustment of the claim under the Scheme against the loan amount due from them.