KULWINDER KAUR Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these three revision petitions will be disposed of by the common order as the same arise out of a common order of the State Commission dated 21.8.2012 by which appeals of the petitioners were dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that three persons, namely, Amarjit Singh, Shamsher Singh and Vikramjeet Singh (hereinafter called as loanees) applied for sanction house loan. An amount of Rs.8,13,789/- was sanctioned to them. The sanctioned amount was to be disbursed in three installments of Rs.2,40,000/-, Rs.3,20,000/- and Rs.2,40,000/- and was to be credited in the joint account of the loanees. Two installments of sanctioned loan amount of Rs.2,40,000/- and Rs.3,20,000/- were disbursed to the loanees. The respondent also sanctioned Rs.13,789/- in their loan account as premium of SBI insurance policy which was calculated on the basis of youngest loanee. At the time when the loan was sanctioned the premium was calculated on the total amount of Rs.8,13,789/-, means that it also calculated the amount sanctioned as a premium of SBI insurance policy. One of the loanee i.e. Vikramjit Singh, the youngest among the loanee, expired on 13.1.2009 during the loan repayment period. As per the terms & conditions of the loan sanctioned, the contention of the loanees was that the balance EMI had become payable by the insurance company. The EMI which was fixed @ Rs.10,257/- was payable in 168 monthly installments. The claim of this effect was filed with the respondent but the respondent rejected the claim vide their letter dated 20.8.2009.

(3.) Aggrieved by it, the LRs of the deceased Vikramjit Singh filed complaint being CC/278/2009 and the remaining two loanees filed C/524/2010.