Smt Nagina C v. M/S Deewan Housing Finance Corporation Ltd

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:43919( WP(No.(11205(of(2022( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010248032022( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( TH DATED(THIS(THE(17 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(M.G.S.(KAMAL(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(11205(OF(2022((GM-RES)(

(

BETWEEN:(( ( SMT,NAGINA,C.,,

W/O,SRI,LATE,IMRAN,PASHA, AGED,ABOUT,30,YEARS, OCCUPATION-HOUSEWIFE,

R/A,DOOR,NO.3447, NEAR,MUBARAK,SHADI,MAHAL, C.,RAHIM,COMPOUND,(NAGAR),

BANGARPET,-,563,114., …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,MASKOOR,HASHMI,M.D.,,A/W,

,,,,,,SRI.,SHAHIDA,KHANAM,J.,ADVOCATE), ( AND:(

Digitally ( signedtiby 1., M/S,DEEWAN,HOUSING,FINANCE,, SUMA0B0N CORPORATION,LTD.,, Location: KALPALATHIKA,TOWERS,HIGH0COURT NO.36,,OLD,NO.24,OF KARNATAKA ASHOK,NAGAR,MAIN,ROAD, KODAMBAKAM,,CHENNAI-600,024, REP,BY,ITS,MANAGING,DIRECTOR., ,

2., M/S,DHFCL-PRAMERICA,LIFE,, INSURANCE,COMPANY,LTD, TH4 ,FLOOR,,BUILDING,NO.9, TOWER-B,,CYBER,CITY, DLF,PHASE,III,,GURGAON-122002, REP,BY,ITS,MANAGING,DIRECTOR., , ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:43919( WP(No.(11205(of(2022( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010248032022( ( (

3., INSURANCE,REGULATORY,AND,, DEVELOPMENT,AUTHORITY,OF,INDIA, RD3 ,FLOOR,,PARISRAMA,BHAVAN, BASHEER,BAGH,,, HYDERABAD-500,004, REP,BY,ITS,AUTHORISED,OFFICER., …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI.,JAI,M.,PATIL.,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1;, ,,,,,,SRI.,V.,SAI,TEJAS,SWAROOP.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2;, ,,,,,,SMT.,SUMANA,NAGANAND.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R3)(VC), , , THIS, WP, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLE, 226, &, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO-DIRECT,THE,R2,HEREIN, TO,HONOUR,THE,CLAIM,OF,RS.40,04,253/-,CLAIMED,BY,THE, PETITIONER, IN, RESPECT, OF, HOUSING, LOAN, INSURANCE, COVERED, UNDER, INSURANCE, POLICY, NO.GC0000333067500, WITH, ACCRUED, INTEREST, TILL, THE, DATE, OF, ITS, REALIZATION, WITHOUT, INSISTING, FOR, NY, FURTHER, DOCUMENTATIONS,OR,PARTICULARS, , , THIS,PETITION,,COMING,ON,FOR,PRELIMINARY,HEARING, IN, 'B', GROUP,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER, WAS, MADE, THEREIN, AS, UNDER:, , CORAM:, HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,M.G.S.,KAMAL, , ORAL(ORDER(

1., Husband,of,the,petitioner,,namely,,one,Mr.,Imran,Pasha, had,availed,the,housing,loan,of,Rs.36,27,014/-,from,the, respondent, No.1-Corporation/Bank, under, loan, account, No.12700003781., He, had, also, obtained, an, insurance, policy, bearing, No.GC0000333067500, covering, the, total, loan, amount, with, interest, for, securing, the, outstanding,

amount from respondent No.2-Insurance Company and Respondent No.2 had issued a certificate of insurance in favour of the husband of the petitioner. Husband of the petitioner passed away due to illness on 04.08.2020.

¶2Upon his demise, petitioner had requested the respondent

No.2-Insurance Company to make good the payment,

which was not considered. Petitioner had caused issue of

a legal notice, to which a reply was issued on 24.07.2021.

Respondent No.2-Insurance Company failed to repay the

outstanding loan amount. Respondent No.1-Corporation

in the meanwhile initiated the proceedings under Section

13(2) of the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial

Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002

('SARFAESI Act' for short) by issuing a notice dated

30.04.2021. It is under these circumstances the

petitioner approached this Court seeking following reliefs; "(a) Issue the Writ of Mandamus by directing the Respondent No.2 herein to honour the claim of Rs.40,04,253/- claimed by the Petitioner in respect of housing loan insurance covered under Insurance policy No. GC0000333067500 with accrued interest till the date of its realization without insisting for any further documentations or particulars.

(b) grant such other relief or reliefs as the situation demands to meet the ends of justice."

¶3This Court by Order dated 14.09.2022 had granted

interim relief to the petitioner subject to petitioner

depositing a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- with an interval of 2

weeks each from the date of the order. Petitioner stated

to have deposit the said amount.

¶4On 15.06.2026, this Court after hearing the parties

passed the following Order; "1. One of the duties and functions obligated on the part of respondent No.3 is to ensure and facilitate settlement of insurance claims. In instant case, husband of the petitioner who had availed the housing loan insurance, was denied timely payment resulting in petitioner who is a widow being burdened with additional payment of interest in a sum of Rs.11,00,000/-.

¶2Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the respondent No.2 had made the payment in time, petitioner was not required to undergo the financial hardship. He submits that a sum of Rs.34,23,118/- has been paid by respondent No.2 to respondent No.1

¶3Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 drawing attention of this Court to the paragraph No.12 of the statement of objections submits that as per the information uploaded in the portal provided by the respondent No.3, respondent No.2 has alleged that the deceased-insured was suffering from pre-existing medical illness. Therefore, there is a dispute between the insured/his legal representatives and the insurer, which requires to be sorted out in a different forum.

¶4In the light of the provision noted above, learned counsel for the respondent No.3, however seeks a week's accommodation to seek instruction as to the actual role, duty and obligation of the respondent No.3 in the case of this nature.

¶5List this matter on 24.06.2026."

¶5In furtherance to the same, respondent No.2-Insurance

Company filed a memo on 16.07.2026 informing this

Court that the respondent No.2-Insurance Company has

settled the amount payable for and on behalf of the

petitioner and has repaid the entire amount due and

payable to the respondent No.1-Corporation. That the

respondent No.1-Corporation had issued objection

certificate confirming settlement of the account.

¶6Taking note of the said memo, this Court on 16.07.2026

passed the following order; "1. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 is absent.

¶2Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has filed a memo, which reads as under: MEMO ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO.1 '' The Advocate for Respondent No.2 submits as follows: The Respondent No.2 Company has settled the interest amount and made payment to the Respondent No.1 Company. The NOC issued by the respondent No.1 Company with respect of settlement of the interest is filed along with this memo.''

¶3The said memo is also accompanied by a letter purportedly addressed to the petitioner, indicating the loan account of the petitioner has been completely repaid and there are no dues payable by the petitioner. It further states that the petitioner could go and collect the original title deeds within 10 days.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand furnishes a printout of WhatsApp message stated to have received by the petitioner from respondent No.1, calling upon him to submit an One Time Settlement proposal and to pay sum of Rs.7,13,932/-.

¶5Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that this Court by order dated 14.09.2022 had directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- before the respondent No.1, which he has complied with and which amount is due and liable to be paid by respondent No.2-Insurance Company. Therefore, he vehemently urges that the memo filed along with the letter is misleading.

¶6In view of the above, respondent No.2 shall furnish details of the calculation with regard to the amount due and payable to the petitioner. Respondent No.2 shall also furnish the details of the amount paid to the respondent No.1

¶7Since the respondent No.2 has claimed the entire loan amount has been cleared, respondent No.1 is directed to produce the original documents of the property deposited by the petitioner by the next date of hearing before this Court.

¶8Any laxity in the matter on the part of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in compliance with the directions issued as above, would be viewed seriously.

¶9List this matter on 21.07.2026 at 2:30 P.M.

¶7In furtherance to the aforesaid order, counsel for

respondent No.1-Corporation had submitted a memo

along with the original documents as per the list.

¶8Respondent No.2-Insurance Company also filed memo of

calculation.

¶9However, counsel of the petitioner raised dispute with

regard to the amount of Rs.6,00,000/- paid by the

petitioner in terms of the interim order dated

14.09.2022 and contented the said amount of

Rs.6,00,000/- which was paid by the petitioner should

also be covered under the insurance and the amount so

paid shall be returned to the petitioner.

¶10In that view of the matter, this Court on 21.07.2026

passed the following Order; "1. Pursuant to order dated 16.07.2026 learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Corporation has submitted a memo along with list of documents which were submitted by petitioner for availing the financial assistance. The memo indicate said documents to be original.

¶2Learned counsel for petitioner in the presence of petitioner accepts the original documents.

¶3Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed a memo of calculation along with the statement of account.

¶4Learned counsel for petitioner submits account statement furnished by respondent No.2 does not give justification of amount of Rs.6,00,000/- paid by the petitioner and same requires to be refunded to the petitioner.

¶5To hear on memo of calculation, list this matter

on 04.08.2026 at 2.30 P.M."

¶11Thereafter, on 04.08.2026 this Court had directed the

respondent No.1-Corporation to furnish calculation of the

outstanding amount that was payable in respect of the

aforesaid housing loan at the time of demise of the

husband of the petitioner.

¶12In response thereof, today, learned counsel for the

respondent No.1-Corporation has filed statement of

account with a Loan Pre-Closure Statement dated

15.07.2026, which indicate amount due and payable as

on 15.07.2026 to be at Rs.25,58,635/-.

¶13Referring to the same, counsel for the respondent No.1-

Corporation submits that respondent No.2-Insurance

company has settled outstanding sum of Rs.10,00,000/-

and for the remaining amount, respondent No.1-

Corporation has given a waiver.

¶14This statement is seriously disputed by the counsel for

the petitioner. He points out that the respondent No.1-

Corporation/Bank and the respondent No.2-Insurance

company despite specific directions by this Court to

provide the details of the outstanding as on the date of

death of husband of the petitioner, have not furnished the

details. He insists that unless and until the outstanding

details as on the date of death of the husband of the

petitioner are furnished, it would not be possible to come

to conclusion with regard to the status of payment of

Rs.6,00,000/- made by the petitioner.

¶15In response, respondent No.1-Corporation/Bank submits

that the only bank statement is available and they are

not able to retrieve the other statements. The

response of the respondent No.1-Corporation/Bank in this

regard cannot be countenanced. Respondent No.1-

Corporation/Bank is expected to maintain the bank

account from the date of sanctioning of the loan till it is

closed. It cannot be expected to erase and efface details

from the records as sought to be done in the instant case.

¶16Be that as it is. Learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.3 on a query by this Court, submits that matter would

have be considered by the Office of Insurance

Ombudsman in accordance with the provisions of the

Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of

India (Protection of Policyholders' Interests) Regulations,

2017 (for short 'Regulations, 2017') and the matter will

be looked at from the angle of disputed facts and the

appropriate order in this regard will be passed.

¶17Heard. Perused the records.

¶18There is no dispute of the fact that the husband of the

petitioner who had availed the financial assistance from

the respondent No.1-Corporation/Bank had also obtained

an insurance policy from the respondent No.2-Insurance

company. There is also no dispute of the fact that it was

the obligation on the part of respondent No.2-Insurance

company to have honoured the terms of the insurance.

¶19Though, initially respondent No.2-Insurance company

had denied the claim, as seen above has subsequently

paid the amount purportedly in terms of the insurance

policy. The respondent No.1-Corporation/Bank having

accepted the amount from respondent No.2-Insurance

Company for and on behalf of the deceased husband of

the petitioner, has apparently pre-closed the loan account

and has even handed over the original documents of title.

¶20The question which remains unanswered is with regard to

Rs.6,00,000/- paid by the petitioner as well as the

interest amount which is payable to the petitioner from

the date of the cause of action till repayment of the entire

insurance amount.

¶21Though this Court had repeatedly directed the respondent No.1-Corporation/Bank as well as the respondent No.2-Insurance company to furnish the bank account, with regard to the outstanding amount as on the date when the husband of the petitioner passed away, no such records are furnished. Non-furnishing details of accounts by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the circumstances may have to be read in favour of the petitioner.

¶22Be that as it is. Verification of the records, payment of

interest, entitlement of the policy holder are all governed

under the Regulations, 2017 as referred to above and the

authority vested with the power to adjudicate upon this

issue is the Office of Insurance Ombudsman under

Clause 14 of the Regulations, 2017.

¶23Counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submits that

the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to adjudicate the

matter is restricted only to Rs.30,00,000/- and therefore

there may be technical objections in this regard.

¶24The said apprehension of the petitioner may not survive

for consideration, inasmuch as, the issue now involved is

only to the extent of Rs.6,00,000/- and the interest

amount payable to the petitioner by the respondent No.2.

¶25In that view of the matter, this Court without adverting to

the merits or otherwise of the claims and contentions of

the parties, deems it appropriate to dispose of the

petition with the following; ORDER

(i) Petition is disposed of.

(ii) Matter is remitted to the Office of Insurance

Ombudsman.

(iii) Parties are at liberty to submit their statements,

written statements and documents justifying their

claim if any.

(iv) Insurance Ombudsman shall after, affording

opportunity to petitioner as well as the respondent

No.1-Corporation/Bank and respondent No.2-

Insurance company pass orders after considering

the following points;

(a) what was the amount that was insured and promised by the respondent No.2-Insurance company to be paid to respondent No.1-Corporation/Bank against the housing loan amount borrowed by the deceased husband of the petitioner.

(b) What was the amount due and payable by the respondent No.2-Insurance company and what was the amount actually paid to respondent No.1-Corporation/Bank.

(c) Respondent No.1-Corporation/Bank to ascertain and furnish the actual amount due and outstanding as per the accounts maintained in its books of accounts as on the day on which the husband of the petitioner passed on.

(d) Whether the petitioner is entitled for repayment of Rs.6,00,000/- paid in terms of the interim order passed by this Court vide order dated 14.09.2022.

(e) Whether the petitioner is entitled for the interest as per clause 14 of the Regulations, 2017.

(v) Such orders shall be passed within an outer limit of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copies of this order.

(vi) Though the respondent No.1-Corporation/Bank is also directed to participate in the proceedings before the Ombudsman, there shall not be any technical objection be raised, inasmuch as the substance of the dispute is with regard to the insurance claim between the

petitioner and respondent No.2-Insurance Company and the actual payment made to Respondent No.1-Corporation/Bank. Therefore, respondent No.1-Corporation/Bank is directed to furnish the details of account before the Insurance Ombudsman to arrive at a just and effective determination.

(vii) All contentions are kept open.

SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40