State Bank of In vs Whether only operative part of the judgm

Mr. Rajneesh Malhotra, Advocate, ocate, Mr ocate, and Ms. Manvi Verma, Advocate, for respondent No.3-SBI Life. ***** SHEEL NAGU AGU, C.J.

1. This petition invoking the writ as w Th rit as well as supervisory jurisdiction o ction of this Court unde t under Article 226/227 of the Consti Constitution of India has been filed filed by the widow (peti (petitioner), who along with her late late husband Sh. Rakesh Kumar, wa ar, was sanctioned loan d loan of Rs.7.00 Lakhs in 2003, init f India, 3, initially by the State Bank of India Hyderabad, whi d, which got merged in the State Bank e Bank of India on 01.04.2017.

2. The late husband of the petition Th etitioner suffered acute depression i sion in 2016, whereafte ereafter the payment of EMIs becam n 2019, became irregular. Thereafter, in 2019 the late husband usband of the petitioner suffered a fal d a fall. This compelled the petitione titioner to write a reque request letter dated 05.10.2020 (Anne nt Nos. (Annexure P-4) to the respondent Nos AJAY PRASHER 2026.01.08 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19983-202 2022 (O&M ) - 2- 1 and 2 that sinc at since the loan account is insured un red under the SBI Life-Super Suraksh uraksha Housing Loan C Loan Coverage, the protective cover cover be provided. However, the loa he loan account was dec as declared Non Performing Asset (N set (NPA) showing outstanding dues o dues of Rs.3,85,754.12

54.12 as on 17.11.2022, in respect spect of which, notice u/s 13 (2) o (2) of Securitization a tion and Reconstruction of Financi inancial Assets and Enforcement o ent of Security Intere Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘SAR ‘SARFAESI Act’) was issued vid d vide Annexure P-5.

5. In response u/s 13 (3) (A) of (A) of SARFAESI Act, the petitione titioner revealed the ph the physical and mental infirmity by citing health reasons of he of her husband. Respo Respondent No.2-Bank declined to e ed to extend the insurance cover on th r on the ground that the at the same is available only in case o case of death of the insured and not fo not for reasons of illnes f illness.

2.1. Thereafter, the respondent/Bank Th took recourse by invoking Sectio Section 13 (4) of the f the SARFAESI Act by issuing p ing possession notice on 26.07.202

7.2022 (Annexure P-17 17).

2.2. Meanwhile, the bank issued letter Me xure P- letter dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P 14) informing t ming that SBI Life Master Policy sec cy secured the loan in question for 1 for 15 years i.e. from from 29.09.2004 to 29.09.2018 and s xpired, and since the policy has now expired the claim of insu of insurance is declined.

3. Thus, the petitioner has approa Th approached this Court assailing th ing the aforesaid order order dated 07.03.2022 (Annexure P ure P-14) and possession notice date e dated

26.07.2022 (An 2 (Annexure P-17) issued u/s 13 (4 13 (4) along with notice u/s 13 (2 13 (2) (Annexure P-10 10) of SARFAESI Act.

4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-Bank, b Re ank, by filing a reply, have primaril rimarily taken a stand th tand that husband of the petitioner exp er expired on 12.12.2021 and since th ince the term of the po the policy expired on 29.09.2018 (p 18 (prior to the death of petitioner’ tioner’s AJAY PRASHER 2026.01.08 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19983-202 2022 (O&M ) - 3- husband), no be , no benefit can accrue to the petitioner itioner out of the insurance policy.

4.1. However, the Bank (respondent N Ho ent Nos.1 and 2) left this aspect to b ct to be better explained lained by respondent No.3-Insurance C rance Company.

4.2. Whereas, the stand of responden Wh ondent No.3-Insurance Company, o , on facts, was that s that the insurance cover was only only for 15 years, which expired o ired on

29.09.2018 and 8 and since the insurance cover did no did not exist on the date of death i.e. i i.e. in 2021, responden pondent No.3 is not liable. Responde spondent No.3 has annexed the Maste Master Policy of Home Home Loan Insurance with the written written statement.

5. However, the terms and conditions Ho ditions mentioned in the Master Polic r Policy are not very cl ery clear and explicit so as to facili facilitate this Court to adjudicate th ate the present dispute, ispute, as to whether the petitioner an ner and co-borrower (her husband) ar nd) are entitled to the b o the benefit of the insurance cover, over, which expired on 29.09.2018 o 2018 or not?

6. This Court, while taking cognizan Th

1.2023, gnizance of this matter on 18.01.2023 had stayed disp d dispossession of the petitioner from r from the mortgaged property (secure secured asset). The said he said interim order is continuing till d g till date.

7. Whether the insurance company- Wh -respondent No.3 was deficient i cient in the service to b ce to be rendered by it to the petitio petitioner or not, is a question to b n to be decided by the by the appropriate and jurisdictional ctional District Consumer Forum an m and ought not to be t to be dealt with while exercising th ing the writ jurisdiction by this Cour Court, especially when when the process of adjudication invo fact. on involve disputed questions of fact.

8. In view of above, this Court, wh In rt, while continuing the interim orde passed by this C this Court on 18.01.2023, extends lib nds liberty to the petitioner to approac pproach the jurisdiction iction District Consumer Forum or th or the State Consumer Forum, as th , as the case may be. If be. If, the jurisdictional District/State t/State Consumer Forum is approache roached AJAY PRASHER 2026.01.08 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-19983-202 2022 (O&M ) - 4- within a period period of 60 days from today, then the en the said complaint of the petitione titioner shall be enterta ntertained and disposed of on its own its own merits without being dismisse smissed on limitation alo ion alone.

8.1. It is made clear that in case, the It i the petitioner does not approach th ach the jurisdictional District/State Consumer Forum orum within 60 days, then responden pondent Nos. 1 and 2- -Bank shall be free to liquidate th idate the secured asset and recover th ver the loan.

8.2. In case, the complaint is filed befo In d before the jurisdictional District/Stat ct/State Consumer Foru r Forum by the petitioner within 60 d interim n 60 days from today, then the interim order passed by sed by this Court on 18.01.2023 shall 3 shall continue to operate till disposa isposal of the complain plaint.

8.3. This Court hastens to add that we Th we have not rendered any finding o ding on merits of the cla the claim of petitioner.

8.4. With the aforesaid observations, d Wi ions, directions and liberty, this Cou s Court disposes of this of this petition. (SH (SHEEL NAGU) CHIEF JUSTICE CH (SANJIV BERRY) (SA JUDGE

08.01.2026 Ajay Prasher Whether sp Whether re ther speaking/reasoned ther reportable : : Ye Yes / No Yes / No Ye AJAY PRASHER 2026.01.08 14:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document