Quashed

Priya Vaishnav v. Union Bank of India

DRT15 Jul 2022SA/109/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Securitization Application, the Debts Recovery Tribunal quashed and set aside a Demand Notice and Possession Notice issued to a deceased borrower, holding them legally unsustainable. The court did not dismiss the application on substantive merits regarding the debt but disposed of it by quashing the notices, allowing the bank to issue them afresh.

What did the court decide?

On 15.07.2022, the Demand Notice dd. 30.10.2021 and Possession Notice dd. 21.02.2022 were quashed and set aside as they were issued against a dead person.

Priya Vaishnav versus Union Bank of India — DRT (2022) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

SA/351/2022

¶3

DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR PRESIDING OFFICER: SH. VIVEK SAXENA

¶4

SA No.- 109/2022

¶5

PRIYA VAISHNAV

¶6

W/o Late Shree Rajesh Vaishnav

¶7

Address at 9 Bapu Nagar, Ward No. 31, Pali Marwar, Rajasthan – 306401

¶8

………Applicant

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. UNION BANK OF INDIA Through – Authorized Officer Address ID- 87C Shreenath Complex, Veer Durgadas Nagar, PO Pali, Rajasthan.

¶11

2. AUTHORIZED OFFICER

¶12

Union Bank of India,

¶13

Address ID – 87 C Shreenath Complex, Veer Durgadas Nagar, PO Pali, Rajasthan.

¶14

..….. Respondents

¶15

Counsel –

¶16

Shri Kailash Tailor, Ld. Counsel for the Applicant

¶17

Shri Bhoop Singh Gurjar, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent FI

¶18

(Final Order)

¶19

(15.07.2022)

¶20

This Securitization Application was filed on 04.03.2022 by Smt. Priya Vaishnav W/o Late Shri Rajesh Vaishnav being aggrieved by the Demand Notice dt. 30.10.2021 and Possession Notice dt. 21.02.2022 issued by the Respondent Bank.

¶21

As per facts of the case, Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav took credit facility of Rs. 25.00 Lac from the

¶22

¶23

SA/351/2022

¶24

Respondent Bank on 22.09.2022 and the repayment was regular, till the death of Mr. Rajesh Vaishnav, who expired on 08.05.2021, Death Certificate is at Annexure-A/1.

¶25

It is submitted in para 2 that the life of Late Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav was secured through Insurance Policy dt. 30.09.2017 and the insurance was covered till 29.09.2029. Copy of Statement of Account, showing payment of insurance premium is at Annexure-A/2.

¶26

The Applicant filed an Application under the provisions RTI seeking information and AnnexureA/3, is the details, provided by the Respondent Bank, as per reply to the RTI Application.

¶27

In para 4 of the SA, it is admitted that after death of Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav, Applicant could not pay the amount of regular EMI and so she requested the Respondent Bank to settle the account from the amount to be received against the Insurance Policy of Late Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav but no heed was paid.

¶28

The Demand Notice was issued on 30.10.2021, which is at Annexure-A/5 and the amount due as mentioned in the Demand Notice, is challenged as illegal and Ld. counsel for Applicant argued that the Demand Notice dt. 30.10.2021 at AnnexureA/5, is liable to be quashed and set aside as the same was issued to Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav, whereas he expired on 06.05.2021, therefore, the

¶29

¶30

SA/351/2022

¶31

Respondent Bank initiated proceedings against a dead person by issuing a Demand Notice dt. 30.10.2021.

¶32

Ld. counsel for Applicant further argued that the fact of death of Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav was duly informed to the Respondent Bank but the Respondent Bank failed to adjust the amount of insurance claim on account of death of Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav, they issued the Demand Notice against a dead person.

¶33

Next argument is with regard of compliance of Rule 8, with regard to possession notice, as the Respondent Bank failed to publish the possession notice in two leading newspapers and it was not affixed on the subject mortgaged property and so finally, Ld. counsel for SA Applicant prayed to allow this SA and to quash and set aside the Demand Notice as well as Possession Notice.

¶34

Reply to this SA was filed by the Respondent Bank on 25.04.2022. Along with reply, copy of legal notice dt. 27.08.2021 at Annexure-R/1, Copy of Demand Notice dt. 30.10.2021 at Annexure-R/2, Copy of Possession Notice dt. 21.02.2022 along with postal receipts and newspaper publication at Annexure-R/3 (Colly.), Copy of RTI Application dt. 27.01.2022 at Annexure-R/4 and Statement of Account of deceased borrower Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav, is filed at Annexure-R/5.

¶35

¶36

SA/351/2022

¶37

Ld. counsel for Respondent Bank submitted that the Applicant failed to provide information with regard to death of borrower Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav, the death is admitted and therefore, the legal notice dt. 27.08.2021 was issued by the Respondent Bank and after that a Demand Notice was issued on 30.10.2021. Ld. counsel further argued that the Possession Notice was duly published in two leading newspapers and so the Ld. counsel argued that the actions initiated by the Respondent Bank, are as per law so the SA is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

¶38

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶39

Availing credit facility, is admitted and default on account of death of borrower Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav is also admitted.

¶40

The Applicant Smt. Priya Vaishnave being wife of Late Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav is also one of the borrowers as it is clear from the Possession Notice as well as Demand Notice.

¶41

From the Letter dt. 30.09.2017, filed at page no. 23 of the SA, it is clear that the life of Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav was insured w.e.f. 30.09.2017 to 29.09.2029 against the credit facility of Rs. 25.00 Lac and an amount of Rs. 15,895/- was also being regularly debited from the account of borrower Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav. A copy of application under the provisions of RTI is filed at Annexure-R/4 and from this application, it is no

¶42

¶43

SA/351/2022

¶44

where mentioned by the SA Applicant that she has informed to the Respondent Bank about death of Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav. This application under RTI was filed on 27.01.2022 whereas Sh. Rajesh Vaishnave expired on 06.05.2021.

¶45

There is no evidence filed on record, which can show that the Applicant being co-borrower informed to the Respondent Bank about the death of borrower Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav and so issuance of Demand Notice to Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav, is legally sustainable though as per circumstances, when the Demand Notice was issued, Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav was no more in this world.

¶46

With regard to service of Demand Notice, it is clear from the details filed along Annexure-R/2 that the Demand Notice was dispatched on 01.11.2021 but Track Report is not filed, Possession Notice dt. 21.02.2022 (Annexure-R/3) was duly published in two leading newspapers and it was also dispatched on 23.02.2022.

¶47

Some of the facts, as submitted by the SA Applicant in the SA, are based on oral conversation and the same are not liable to be accepted as no documentary evidence is filed on record.

¶48

It is also important to mention here that no evidence is filed on record by SA Applicant in order to show that they approached to the Insurance Company claiming amount of insurance

¶49

¶50

SA/351/2022

¶51

and in my considered opinion, it was not the entire responsibility of the Respondent Bank to go to the Insurance Company for claiming the amount of insurance of borrower Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav.

¶52

The fact remains that the Demand Notice as well as Possession Notice, were issued by the Respondent Bank against a dead person Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav, therefore, Ld. counsel for SA Applicant, prayed that the said notices were liable to be quashed.

¶53

Definitely, the SA Applicant is at fault being co borrower, who failed to inform the Respondent Bank about the fact of death of Sh. Rajesh Vaishnav on his death or just after his death.

¶54

Considering the entire evidence and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Respondent Bank is at liberty to proceed ahead as per law by issuing Demand Notice and Possession Notice afresh. The Demand Notice dt. 30.10.2021 and Possession Notice dt. 21.02.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside as the said Notices were issued against a dead person.

¶55

Accordingly, this Securitization Application stands disposed of as allowed. Copy of the order be given free to the parties concerned. File be placed before the Registrar for compliance. After compliance file be consigned to record.

¶56

Vivek Saxena Presiding Officer DRT, Jaipur

¶57

¶58

SA/351/2022

Priya Vaishnav v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priya Vaishnav v. Union Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Kumawat versus Hero Housing Finance Ltd.

M S Nkb Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. versus Indian Bank

Mahendra Singh Sankhla versus Yes Bank

Tara Ram versus Reliance Home Finance Limited

Dharam Chand Jain versus Phoenix Arc Pvt. Ltd.

Smt Sita Devi versus Laxmi India Finleasecap Pvt. Ltd.