MANAGER VIJAYA BANK Vs. REGIONAL PROVIND FUND COMMR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Manager, Vijaya Bank, Padubidri Branch, Padubidri, Dakshina kannada District, who is the petitioner in W. P. No. 18335 of 1996, feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 1st day of February, 1999 (The Manager, Vijaya Bank, Padubidri branch, Dakshina Kannada v The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Mangalore and Others) has preferred this writ appeal.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge, by the order under appeal has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

(3.) THE events leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted briefly in the first instance and they are as follows: the appellant at the request of the 3rd respondent had sanctioned an open Loan Cash Credit of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Key Loan Cash Credit of rs. 6,00,000/- to meet the working capital requirements. The 3rd respondent had secured four loans by hypothecation of goods/stocks etc. , and also by the personal guarantee given by the husband of the managing partner of the 3rd respondent. The hypothecated goods/stocks had been insured for a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- with United India Insurance Company Limited, Udupi by the appellant-Bank, through the 3rd respondent. It is stated that the premia were paid by the appellant-Bank and debited to the Cash Credit Account of the 3rd respondent. It appears the hypothecated goods/stocks stored in the factory premises of the 3rd respondent were destroyed by fire on 9th September, 1990. The appellantbank lodged an insurance claim with United India Insurance Company through the 3rd respondent. Since the parties did not agree for any acceptable terms, the dispute was carried on by the third respondent to the Karnataka State Commission for Consumer Redress al under the consumer Protection Act. The Commission by its order dated 23-1-1995 held that the 3rd respondent is entitled to a sum of Rs. 9,49,168. 60 towards principal and interest till the date of payment to it. Having declared so and taking into account the hypothecation agreement between the appellant and the 3rd respondent, the Commission disposed of the Complaint No. 23 of 1993 in the following terms: