Respectable lerned experts, bank has pasted Symbolic Possessession Notice on both flat of borrower on which loans were given after declaring loans as NPA, i would like to clear here that both loans are converted in NPA due to mistakes/unfair dealings otherwise there would not be NPA moreover one property has been released from bank custody. I would like to share following facts.
1. Rs. 75,00,000/- Home Loan & 35,00,000/- loan aginst property were disbursed by bank on same day to borrower.
1. As per IRDA, asignment of health insurance policy is not allowed.......please check at your side, but health insurance policy of Rs. 20,00,000/- was assigned in favour of loan home loan of Rs. 75,00,000/- in place of assigning with loan against property in which interest rate was higher.
2. Proposal form of health insurance policy has compulsory assignment clause in favour of home loan.
3. Whether assignment was allowed or not in health insurance policy, borrower did not get option right to choose as per consumer protection act a loan a/c to be assigned.
4. Premium of health insurance policy was enough to cover whole loan amount of Rs. 1,10,00,000/- through Term Insurance policy but, it was not sold by bank which covers permanent loss & bank left 1 cr. loan without insurance coverage & a health policy for sum Rs. 20,00,000/- which covers temporary loss.
Sir, i would like to clear here that such insurance policy is being sold by bank in the name of compulsory part of loan agreement. The insurance policy was sold by bank, it could easily be proved through website record in this regard submitted by me in consumer court.
5. After death of first applicant (husband), insurance claim was settled with Home Loan & it was settled with pricipal amount.
6. If insurance would have been settled with loan against property then principle amount would have been deducted by Rs. 24,00,000- but this account remained at around 33,00,000/- otherwise it would be just Rs. 13,00,000/- to pay further.
7. Due to managing EMI payment by single person i.e. wife, time to time it was defaulted & accumulation turned both a/c as npa otherwise the EMIs paid by wife till May-June 2015 were enough to clear loan against property & there after EMIs paid in same a/c till May 2017 would go in Home Loan & there would not be any pending of EMI or hardly 1-2 EMI remains pending.
8. Moreover same health insurance policy has already been declared as wrong policy to cover mortgage loan by insurance ombudsman in 2010 even then same insurance policy was sold to borrower.
9. On the basis of serious fault committed by bank at the time of disbursing both loan, a consumer court case in National Commission was filed on following points;
a. if a doctor is responsible for medical negligence, in the same way bank is responsible for selling a wrong insurance policy when they were fully aware then a term insurance policy could cover whole loan amount but health insurance policy was sold so that bank should not bear higher liability......it is against basic principle of insurance "need based selling"
b. As per IRDA, assignment is not allowed in health insurance policy, assignment in combi product is allowed but only for life part.
c. Proposal form has cumpulsory assignment clause in favour of loan, thus borrower didnot get right to choose as per consumer protection act to assign policy in loan against property in which interest rate was higher by1.75% annually most of the time.
10. So on these circumstance both loan a/c became NPA, case in consumer court is going on from last above 4 years & at final argument stage from last 2 years, bench is much keen to protect service provider rather than giving justice to complainant.
11. On the other hand to support bank to recover npa, there is no provision to ask borrower to put their point.
12. When consulted with DRT expert, it was suggested by them, even DRT would ignore consumer court & will ask to borrower to deposit atleast 25% of amount which come around 16-17 lakh, how to get this amount due to poor credit rating borrower would not be able to get loan to get stay from DRT.
13. An application for shifting death insurance claim from home loan to loan against property is pending since April 2017, for which order was passed that application is premature & it will be taken at final argument stage.
14. Sir, on 15.06.2018 Physical Possession Notice under Sarfaesi Act 13(4) were pasted by bank on both properties. Demand notice under section 13(2) was sent in 1st week of March, after that in personal meeting objection was raised against notice under section 13(2) but objection was not raised in writing, moreover when it came into knowledge that objection should be in wrinting against demand notice under section 13(2) then after symbolic possession notice objection in details hasbeen forwarded to bank through email against symbolic possession.
To continue both loans Rs. 13,00,000/- is required to clear pending EMIs of bank suggested by bank for stay order in DRT 25% i.e 16-17 lakh is required, both options are difficult to manage. The fact is even borrower is genuine she is not able to understand what to do. Possession of property has not been taken due to late possession on which home has been given. Another consumer court case for delay possession compensation is going on.
It was suggested by counsel that from the date of symbolic possession, 45 days are available to appeal & 45 days for physical possession. When in a meeting with bank officials it was informed that borrower has only 30 days after 15 days of symbolic possession notice another notice for physical possession will be pasted with giving 15 days time. Please suggest.
I have no hesitation to note that what a country India is where a consumer has to give above 4 years to get justice in consumer court where as property has been taken from borrower by bank within year through court.
