RAMBHAROSHE AGRAWAL Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 22.5.2000, passed in Complaint No. 5/1998 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum for short) whereby the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the aforesaid order the complainant has preferred this appeal. Relevant facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that in the year 1981 the complainant had obtained loan of Rs. 49,000/ - from the respondent Bank for purchase of a Matador and had purchased Matador bearing No. M.B.R. 8698 and the said vehicle was registered in the name of the complainant/appellant. As per the complainant it was agreed that the Bank will keep the vehicle insured. However, though the Bank initially got the vehicle insured but thereafter failed to do the needful without any reason. The aforesaid vehicle was involved in an accident on 21.8.1983 and one Shersingh had died in the said accident and in the M.A.C.T. case filed by the legal heirs the appellant had to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. Thereafter the complainant decided to get the vehicle insured on his own and intimated the Bank accordingly. However, the Bank kept debiting the amount from the account for paying premium for insurance from the year 1987 to 1991, without any intimation to the complainant and also calculated interest over the amount of the premium as detailed in the complaint. Consequently, as per averments of the complaint, the complainant had to pay an additional sum of Rs. 9,990/ - though the complainant also had got the vehicle insured for the aforesaid period. Hence the complainant had filed the complaint before the District Forum for being compensated for the loss, as detailed in the complaint, suffered by him due to deficiency in service on part of the Bank.

(3.) THE opposite party/respondent Bank averred in the written version that the complaint, being time -barred, is not maintainable. Further that the complaint involves complicated questions hence the Forum has no jurisdiction. It was further averred in the written version that as per Para 7 of the Agreement of Hypothecation of Vehicle the Bank was authorized to insure the vehicle in case the borrower failed to insure the same and was authorized to debit the amount to the borrower s account. However, the Bank was not bound to get the vehicle insured. The Bank was not at all deficient in service and as such was not liable to make payment as prayed in the complaint. The opposite party Bank had prayed for dismissal of complaint under Section 26 and had claimed compensation of Rs. 5,000/ -.