Dismissed

Mrs Konduri Padmavathi v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

DRT9 Apr 2025SA/326/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a securitisation application under the SARFAESI Act, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's challenge against the first respondent's recovery measures. The court held that the applicant failed to prove entitlement to the insurance claim and noted that compliance with statutory notice provisions was satisfied.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mrs Konduri Padmavathi versus Tata Capital Housing Finance… — Service and Employment | DRT (2025)

¶1

IN THE DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL - II AT HYDEMBAD

¶2

DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶3

PRESENT: SH. RAMESHWAR KOTHE, B.Conr., L.LB. (llons.), M.A. PRESIDING OFFICER

¶4

SECURITISATION APPLICATION NO. 326 OF 2023

¶5

Between:

¶6

Mrs. Konduri Padmavathi W/o Late K. Jagadeeshwar Aged: 55 years, Housewife H. Na. 3-8-39/4, Block No.8 Nehru Nagar, Ramanthapur Village Uppal Mandal, GHMC Uppal Circle-Il Medchal-Malkajgiri District. ...,...Applicant.

¶7

Versus

¶8

Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited Rep by its Authorised Officer 3,4,5 & 6, Road No.3, Auto Plaza Opp: Times of India, Banjara Hills Hyderabdd- 500034.

¶9

Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. Rep by its Authorised Signatory Stn and 6th Floor, Imperial Towers 7-1-6-617/A, GHI\tC No.615 & 616 Beg u m pet, H yde ra bad - 5000 1 6.

¶10

.,,..Respondents.

¶11

Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. D. Raghavulu. Counsel for 7st Respondent : Mr. Lanka lagannadham, Counsel for 2nd Respondent : Mr. N. Srinatha Rao. fu"

¶12

sA 32612023

¶13

-:o_B_DI_B:-

¶14

The Applicant filed the present Securitisation Application u/s.17 of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as "SARFAESI Act 2002") assailing the measures of 1st respondent through Advocate Commissioner Notice dated 29.07.2023 in pursuance of Warrant in Crl.M.P.No.259 of 2023 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, at Malkajgiri.

¶15

The case of the applicant. in brief, is that applicant is the wife of borrower late K. Jagadeeshwar, who availed a housing loan of Rs.36 lakhs from the 1't respondent during the year 2018. The loan was to be repaid in EMIS @ of Rs.52,74U-. The loan is secured by the sA schedule property as well as an insurance policy taken from 2nd respondent. Applicant's husband K. Jagadeeshwar died while taking treatment for an accident on 21.01.2022. Applicant informed her husband's death to the respondents l and 2 and submitted a claim. The omcials of respondents gave the impression of there being no need of paying the future EMIS as the loan was covered under the insurance policy. However, 1't respondent issued demand notice u/s 13(2) on L5.LL,2022 for^payment of outstanding dues towards the loan account. In response, applicant addressed a letter to respondents 1 and 2 bringing out the fact of the housing loan being covered under the insurance^policy. Respondent No.2 rejected the insurance claim on the^ground that the borrower's health was suppressed at the time of obtaining the insurance policy despite the fact that the policy was issued on the strength ,2lwtyzg ,/'n*

¶16

sA 32612(J23

¶17

of medical reports. Applicant filed CC No.3 of 2022 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad against the 2nd respondent. In the meanwhile, 1st respondent Company obtained warrant for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. The description of the property mentioned in the Cr.M.P. is not correct. The respondent failed to give reply to the objections to the demand notice dated 15.11.2022, thereby violated Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act. Respondent failed to serve the possession notice on the applicant, nor affixed the possession notice on the secured asset or published it in two leading newspapers. The 1"t Respondent initiated SARFAESI proceedings instead of preferring an insurance claim before the 2nd respondent Company.

¶18

The 1st respondent Company filed Memo to treat the counter in IA.2338 of 2023 as reply in the SA. The averments of the reply statement, in brief, are that applicant is the co_borrower to the housing loan. The borrowers defaulted in repayment, resulting in the loan account becoming NpA on Og.tO.2OZ2 and issuance of demand notice on lS.7f,2OZZ. Thereafter, applicant informed of the main borrower K. Jagadiswar having been expired. Respondent recalled the demand notice Cated 15.11.2022 and issued a fresh demand notice on 25.01.2023 callinq upon his legal heirs to clear the dues. As per the postal track report, applicant received the demand notice on 02.O2.2023- In addition to serving the demand notice by registered post, respondent published the demand notice dated 25.01.2023 in Business Standard and Nava Telangana dailies on 07.02.2023. Applicant has not raised any objections to the demand notice dated 25.01.2023. There being no .".pffffi.^tn" a".uno

{/'<sx*'

sa 32612023

notice dated 25.01.2023, respondent issued^{possession notice} u/s 13(4) on L7.05,2023, affxed it on the^{secured assetbesides} publishlng in Business Standard and Mana Telangana on 19.05.2023. The^possession notice^{was sent} to^{the applicantby} registered post on 19.05.2023 and^{the samehas been duly} served on the applicant.^{The insurancepolicy is governed as per} the terms and conditions^{issued by the 2nd respondent.This} respondent is not a^{party to the said policyexcept depositing the} premium in accordance with borrower's^{insructlons.The} respondent has not^{violated any of the provisions of the} SARFAESI Act and the^{Rules thereunder in the securitisation} measures against the^{loan account.}

¶23

The 2nd respondent^{filed reply statement,the averments of} which, in brlef,^{are that the applicant's husbandtooktwo policies} -^{Accident ShieldPolicy and Building and/ContentPackage'The} 2nd respondent has^{not receivedany claim after the death of} applicant's^{husband.Therefore, reiectionof claim does not arise'} In fact, the insured^{had not sustained accidentalinjuryand the} injury was on account^{of a fall due to giddiness' Therefore,such} injury is not covered^{in terms of the Accident Shield Policy' It is} not correct to^{say that the policy coversuncertain death of the} policy holder. The^{policy holder's death is not covered in the} terms of the^{policy.The Accident Shield Policy is covered for a} period from 20.02'2018 to^{19.02.2021'Therefore, no liabillty} arises against the^{2nd respondent' However, the subject claimis} prejudice before the Consumer^{RedressalForum,appllcant} cannot take^{samereliefbefore this Tribunal,(1Y*-vq}

¶24

sA32612023

¶25

Applicant's right to advance arguments was forfeited vide docket order dated 04.O3.2025. Heard learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, There is no representation on behalf of 2nd respondent after filing of reply statement. Perused the material brought on record.

¶26

Learned counsel for the 1tt respondent submits that the applicant being the co-borrower, failed to pay the EMIs after the death of her husband. The pendency of case for insurance claim vis-a-vis her entitlement or disentitlement under the said policy cannot be a ground for discontinuation of EMIs towards the loan account. The 1st respondent is entitled to initiate recovery proceedings under the SARFAESI Act for recovery of outstanding dues^pertaining to the loan account. The applicant has not raised any objections to the demand notice dated 25.01.2023. The applicant having not produced any proof of raising objections to the demand notice dated 25.01.2023, cannot allege violation of Section 13(3A) of the SARFAESI Act by the respondent. While alleging non-service of notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act, applicant herself filed a copy of possession notice dated 17.05.2023 along with the SA. Hence applicant has not filed the present SA with clean hands.

¶27

Now the points that arise for adjudication are: -

¶28

Whether the Applicants made out any valid ground for quashing the securitisation measures initiated by the I't respondent against the SA schedule property under the provisions of Securitisation Act? i, rowhatretW OW

sa 32612023

Point No.(i):

Applicant's main grievance is that 1st respondent should have adjusted the outstanding dues against the insurance claim payable by 2nd respondent instead of initiating proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. However, 2nd respondent in its reply statement categorically denied that the applicant is entitled to insurance claim as the death of the borrower is not accidental but on account of fall due to^giddiness as is evident from the discharge summary sheet placed at pages 55 to 62 of the SA. Further, it is also the contention of the 2nd respondent that the applicant has not submitted any insurance claim at all. According to applicant, her husband died on 21.01.2022. She has not filed any proof of submission of insurance claim before the 2nd respondent insurance company. However, applicant^placed Photostat copies of two letters addressed to the 2nd respondent insurance Company for the claim amount. These two letters are dated 0I.12.2022 i.e.. after a lapse of 11 months of the death of the borrower. The insurance claim does not fall under the provisions of the SARFAES Act and the matter is sub-judice before the appropriate consumer redressal forum. The other grievances of the applicant are violation of Section 13(3A) in giving reply to the objections to the demand notice dated L5.11.2O22 and rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rues,2002 in serving possession notice u/s 13(4) of the SARFAESI Act. However, applicant has not taken any^plea relating to the demand notice dated 25.01.2023. Therefore, the question of 1"t respondent's violation of Section 13(3A) does not arise. In fact, applicant has not^placed any evidence of^her having raised any objections to the earlier demand notice dated V^wn',' .\

¶33

// /^'-<,\L* 1,,/

¶34

sA 32612023

¶35

15.LL.2O22 reportedly withdrawn by the 1st respondent. As regards the compliance of rules 8(1) and 8(2), 1st respondent placed sumcient proof on record as to affixture and publication of possession notice dated 17,05.2023 vide material papers at pages 18 to 35 annexed to the reply statement. These documents have not been disputed by the applicant. In view of the evidence produced by 1't respondent proving compliance of procedure under rules 8(1) and 8(2) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules,2OO2 applicant,s contention has no merit. Accordingly, SA is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

Point No,(ii):

¶37

In the result, SA fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶38

Consequenfly, Interlocutory Applications pending if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶39

Communicate a copy of this order to the parties concerned and upload in official Web portal.

¶40

doy (Dictoted ol Aptil,2O2S),to the Steno, signed ond pronounced by me in the opeh court on thb the {

¶41

,4Y,^'** (n{u(snrdnh xorr.rrr PRESTDTNG orrrcei

Mrs Konduri Padmavathi v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mrs Konduri Padmavathi v. Tata Capital Housing Finance Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Mrs. Bandi Vijaya

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus G.v.Harinadha Babu

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus Aleti Sathish Reddy

Icici Bank Limited versus M/s Coverit

Punjab National Bank versus Damodhar Reddy

Hdfc Bank Ltd., versus M/S Seven Hills Tar Petro Products LLP.