TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 984
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Late Anand Duparte had obtained a personal loan of Rs. 2,00,000/on 27.02.2015 from the Respondent - Finance Company. The personal loan was advanced on 27.02.2015 after executing the loan agreement, and completing all legal formalities. The Respondent - Finance Company secured the loan by issuance of an insurance policy by its sister concern i.e. M/s Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., on behalf of the Borrower. In the Cover Note of the said policy, the Insured was shown as: M/s Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. i.e. the Respondent - Finance Company. The insurance policy was a Group Insurance Policy issued to various borrowers, including the Appellant's husband, whose name was at Serial No. 263 of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the amount was credited to the loan account after deducting the insurance premium. The Respondent - Finance Company obtained the insurance policy from its sister concern on 30.03.2015. Had the insurance policy been issued when the loan was advanced, the amount would have been recovered through the insurance policy. There was therefore a deficiency of service by the Respondent - Finance Company in delay in obtaining the insurance policy from its sister concern. The Respondent - Finance Company was not entitled to recover the loan from the Appellant. The Appellant prayed that the Respondent - Finance Company be restrained from recovering the loan amount from her, since the recovery was wrong and unreasonable, and prayed for payment of com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te Commission, the Respondent - Finance Company filed a Revision Petition before the National Commission u/S. 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The National Commission set aside the Order passed by the State Commission, and allowed the Revision Petition filed by the Respondent - Finance Company vide Order dated 30.11.2018. The National Commission held that the Appellant - Complainant had taken a contradictory stand regarding payment of the insurance premium in her Legal Notice dated 16.12.2015. She had stated that a Demand Draft of Rs. 400/was received by the Respondent - Finance Company from her husband. However, there was no document evidencing receipt of the said Demand Draft by the Respondent - Finance Company towards p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty." (emphasis supplied) 3.2. The National Commission has allowed the Revision Petition of the Respondent - Finance Company on two grounds; first, that the Appellant had failed to produce any evidence to prove that the insurance premium was paid to the Respondent - Finance Company; second, that there was no evidence to prove that the Respondent - Finance Company deducted the insurance premium from the loan account. 3.3. A perusal of the pleadings and record, would show that both these findings are factually incorrect. With respect to the first ground, the Respondent - Finance Company in paragraph 4(c) of the Revision Petition filed before the National Commission, has itself admitted that it had received the Demand Draft from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce Company Limited, shows that the beneficiary of the insurance policy is the Respondent - Finance Company viz. M/s Shriram City Union Finance Ltd. The Cover Note further shows that the Group Insurance Policy dated 30.03.2015 was issued to 280 borrowers, with the loan amounts mentioned against their respective names. Thus, the deduction of Rs. 2,120/from the loan account was towards processing of the composite transaction. 3.5. The deceased husband of the Appellant had fulfilled his part of the transaction, by depositing Rs. 400/by way of the Demand Draft towards the insurance premium, and also the charges of Rs. 2,120/towards processing of the loan transaction. 3.6. The Respondent - Finance Company however delayed in forwarding th....