Dismissed

Sri Praveen G v. Dcb Bank Limited

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2023WP/22960/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges a possession notice and seeks direction to settle an insurance claim. The court directed the petitioners to approach the insurance ombudsman. It also stopped the bank under the SARFAESI Act from proceeding further until the ombudsman decides the insurance claim. The petition was disposed of with these directions.

What did the court decide?

Directing the bank to hold proceedings under the SARFAESI Act pending the insurance ombudsman's decision; directing petitioners to approach the ombudsman within 4 weeks.

Sri Praveen G Vs Dcb Bank Limited — Insurance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:42977 WP No. 22960 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 22960 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI PRAVEEN G

¶9

W/O LATE GOWNURAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/AT NEAR RAILWAY STATION, MALLASANDRA TUMAKURU-572107 2. SRI RAVIKIRAN G S/O LATE GOWNURAIAH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, R/AT NEAR RAILWAY STATION, MALLASANDRA TUMAKURU-572107

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

(BY SRI. KIRAN S. JAVALI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.H. SHANKAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. ROHITH B J.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

DCB BANK LIMITED REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER RAJAJINAGAR BRANCH, HAVING OFFICE NO.650/12, BEE EM AVENUE 2ND STAGE, D BLOCK, DR RAJKUMAR ROAD RAJAJINAGAR

¶15

¶16

NC: 2023:KHC:42977 WP No. 22960 of 2023

¶17

BENGLAURU-560010

¶18

HDFC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LTD REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, HAVING OFFICE AT LODA EXEELUS 13TH FLOOR, APOLLO MILLER COMPOUND, L M JOSHI MARGA, MAHALAKSHMI MUMBAI-400011 E MAIL:[email protected]

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SURESH V., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. SRIDEVI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE POSSESSION NOTICE DTD 22.09.2023 ISSUED BY THE R1, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-J1 AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

¶23

'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayers:

¶26

(a) Issue Writ of Certiorari or any other writ or order by quashing the possession notice dated 22.09.2023 issued by the 1st Respondent, which is produced at Annexure-J1;

¶27

(b) Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or order or direction, directing the Respondents settled the claim amount as

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:42977 WP No. 22960 of 2023

¶29

per the insurance policy which is produced at Annexure-B;

¶30

(c) And also grant such other and further relief's as this Hon'ble Court deems fit while considering the facts and circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice;

¶31

Heard Sri. Kiran S. Javali, learned Senior counsel

¶32

appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Suresh V., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Smt. Sridevi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and have perused the material on record.

¶33

The petitioners are the children of one Gownuraiah. The mother of the petitioners is the original borrower, borrowed certain amount from DCB Bank, respondent No.1 herein. At the time of such borrowal, the loan amount of Rs.30.00 lakhs that was borrowed was insured in its entirety by respondent No.2 - HDFC Life Insurance Company. During the pendency of the clearance of the loan, the mother of the petitioners, the original borrower dies. The claim was made by the petitioners before respondent No.2, who repudiates the client on the score that pre-existing illness of the mother of the petitioners was not divulged at the time when the insurance was taken. The factum of pre-existing illness being the reason for cause of

¶34

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:42977 WP No. 22960 of 2023

¶35

death is seriously disputed by the learned Senior counsel representing the petitioners. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance would submit that it was a pre-existing illness that having not been divulged, no fault can be found with repudiation of the claim by the Insurance. The reason rendered for repudiation is as follows:

¶36

"However, ore investigations have established that the Life Assured was suffering from Diabetes prior to insurance of police."

¶37

(emphasis supplied)

¶38

The reason for repudiating the claim by the

¶39

Insurance is that the deceased was suffering from diabetes prior to the insurance policy, and therefore that becomes a fact

¶40

that has been suppressed and that would lead to repudiation of the client. The petitioners and the respondent-Insurance are at serious disputes with regard to the reason for repudiation. An alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioners to move the insurance ombudsman. I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioners to approach the insurance ombudsman challenging the repudiation of the claim by respondent No.2. The impending urgency is that the first respondent has initiated

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:42977 WP No. 22960 of 2023

¶42

proceedings invoking SARFAESI Act, 2002 against these petitioners.

¶43

The submission of the learned Senior counsel is that

¶44

the entire amount of Rs.30.00 lakhs that was borrowed from respondent No.1 is completely secured by the Insurance at the hands of respondent No.2. The repudiation now has led to the Bank taking action under the SARFAESI Act, 2002. In these circumstances, to resolve the quagmire, I deem it appropriate to direct the Bank to hold its hands till the Insurance ombudsman would consider the claim of the petitioners qua the insurance amount in the challenge to the repudiation of such claim. The petitioners are at liberty to approach the insurance ombudsman, within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the insurance ombudsman shall endeavour to conclude the proceedings, within 12 weeks thereafter, if not earlier.

¶45

Till such time, the first respondent shall hold its hands in not proceeding further under the SARFAESI Act, 2002.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:42977 WP No. 22960 of 2023

¶48

The liberty is reserved to all the parties to avail of such remedy as is available in law once the insurance ombudsman would pass its orders.

¶49

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed.

¶50

Ordered accordingly.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Sri Praveen G v. Dcb Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Praveen G v. Dcb Bank Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mahaveer Jain Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Sri. Hanuman Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Komala Silk and Sarees Vs Canara Bank

Arun Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Umesh Shetty Vs Canara Bank

Mr. R. Sivakumaran Vs Xxxx (Vide Order Dated 10.07.2024)