Deceased husband of the petitioner, who was an employee of the 1st respondent, had availed a Housing loan from the 2nd respondent Bank during his life time. Repayment to the loan was secured through an insurance policy taken from SBI Life Insurance, as insisted by the 2nd respondent Bank. The petitioner's husband died on 07-11- 2007. According to the petitioner, the Death Certificate and other documents requisite for processing the insurance claim was submitted to the 2nd respondent on 05-12-2007. The insurance company had paid the claim to the 2nd respondent. But the title deeds and other documents pertaining to the property mortgaged for securing the loan was not returned by the 2nd respondent, demanding payment of balance amount of Rs.1,52,208/-. Later by virtue of an order the demand was reduced to Rs.96,356/-. It is mentioned that, under compulsion the petitioner had W.P.(c) No. 14659/2014 -2-
remitted a part of the said amount. But the 2nd respondent insisted for payment of the balance. On the basis that there is balance outstanding in the loan account, family pension due to the petitioner from the 1st respondent was withheld, which was being paid by the 1st respondent through the 2nd respondent Bank. The petitioner contended that the 2nd respondent has no right to withhold payment of the family pension. Nor they had any right to adjust the same against the alleged arrears in the housing loan account. Hence the petitioner seeks direction for disbursal of the family pension.
2. Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent Bank submitted that, interest due for the period from the date of the death till the date of submitting the claim before the insurance company is due for payment. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had disputed the liability contending that it was the duty of the Bank to raise the claim immediately on the intimation made about the death. However, the said dispute with respect to liability for payment of the arrears claimed, need not be adjudicated W.P.(c) No. 14659/2014 -3-
in this writ petition. Learned Standing counsel submitted that, recovery steps has already been initiated against the mortgaged property. The petitioner will be at liberty to resist such steps by approaching appropriate legal forum. At any rate the 2nd respondent is not legally entitled to withhold the pensionary benefits paid to the petitioner by the 1st respondent Corporation.
3. Learned Standing counsel submitted that the 2nd respondent is not proposing to withhold any amount of pension disbursed to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner will be at liberty to withdraw such amount from the respective account. The above submission is recorded and the writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to withdraw the family pension amount from the account held in the 2nd respondent Bank. It is also made clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the recovery steps if any initiated, before appropriate forum.
AMG Sd/-
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE.
True copy P.A to Judge