Cicily K.Jacob v. State Bank Of Travancore
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA MONDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2015/4TH JYAISHTA, 1937 WP(C).No. 2980 of 2012 (V) --------------------------- PETITIONER:
----------- CICILY K.JACOB AGED 55 YEARS VADAKETHAKADIYAL, T.C. 2/851(2) ATTINKUZHY KAZHAKKOOTTAM P.O. THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695582 BY ADVS.SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI RESPONDENTS:
------------
1. STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DISRECTOR, POOJAPPURA THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM 695012
2. THE BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE PATTOM BRANCH THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, 695004
3. THE BANKING OMBUDSAMN, OFFICE OF THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN (KERALA UNION TERRITORY LAKSHADWEEP & MAHE) RESERVE BANK OF INDIA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695033
4. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, SBI LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD' 4TH FLOOR KHADI TOWER, NEAR KALOOR PRIVATE BUS STAND, KALOOR ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682017 R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA R1,R2 BY ADV. HARISH GOPINATH R4 BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU R4 BY ADV. M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25-05-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RKC
WP(C).No. 2980 of 2012 (V) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1: A TRUE COPY OF THE SANCTION LETTER DT 28/10/2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P2: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.AGM/1/TVM DT 30/3/2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIOENR EXT.P3: A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DT 28/7/2011 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE HUSBAND OF THE PETITIONER BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT EXT.P4: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINANT DT 8/8/2011 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE the 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P5: A TRUE COPY OF COMMUNICATION NO.DGM/T/RTI COMP/297 DT 19/9/2011 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER (CHIEF MANAGER) OF THE RESPONDENT BANK EXT.P6: A TRUE COPY OF THE REMINDER DT 20/9/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.
P7: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DT 31/10/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P8: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OBO(T) NO.3527/16590/201112 DT 17/11/2011 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER FROM THE OFFICE OF the 3RD RESPONDENT EXT.P9: A TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DT 16/9/2011 BEFORE THE BANKING OMBUDSMAN.
EXT.P10: A TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DT 12/12/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER S.B.I. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. KALOOR.
EXT.P11: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DT 12/1/2012 GIVEN BY THE S.B.I. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY TO THE PETITIONER.
1ST AND 2ND RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS R1(A):
COPY OF THE LOAN-APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER AND HER LATE HUSBAND, DT.15.9.06 R1(B):
COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF LOAN AGREEMENT FOR HOUSING LOAN GRANTED TO PUBLIC, DT.28.10.06, ENTERED INTO BY THE PETITIONER AND HER LATE HUSBAND WITH R2.
RKC TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE
P.V.ASHA, J., W.P.(C) No.2980 of 2012 Dated this the 25th day of May, 2015
JUDGMENT
The petitioner approached this Court for a declaration that she is entitled to get benefit of insurance coverage of Dhanaraksha policy taken by her husband under the SBI Life Insurance Scheme and for a direction to the respondents to grant her the benefit of Insurance Coverage and to close the loan account taken by her husband.
2. The petitioner's husband late Sri.V.A.Joseph had availed a housing loan from the State Bank of Travancore Pattom Branch, Thiruvananthapuram. According to the petitioner, she was the guarantor for it. Consequent to the death of her husband on 12.3.2011, the bank initiated steps to recover the amount due towards the loan. When the petitioner claimed the benefit of insurance coverage, she was informed that there was no insurance coverage availed by her husband, even though a sum of Rs.68,621/- was sanctioned for the same. The petitioner had approached the Banking Ombudsman in respect of her claim and by Ext.P8, the Banking Ombudsman rejected her complaint. It is under this circumstance, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit disputing the claim of the petitioner stating that there was no insurance coverage
W.P.(C) No.2980 of 2012 :2:
granted, though it was sanctioned, as there was no proposal received from the husband of the petitioner and the petitioner is thus not entitled to any relief.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the entire amount towards the loan amount was paid. Therefore the writ petition can be closed, keeping the question regarding her claim on the sum of 68,621/- alleged to have been sanctioned ₹ towards the insurance coverage, which, according to the petitioner has been debited in the loan amount and the repayment was scheduled in accordance with the total amount sanctioned.
In the above circumstances, the writ petition is closed, granting liberty to the petitioner, to take up the matter in appropriate authorities, regarding her claim on the above amount towards the insurance coverage.
sd/- P.V.ASHA, JUDGE.
rkc