STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SARJERAO SITARAM KHADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Satara in consumer complaint No. 127/2005 decided on 29/06/2006 whereby while allowing the complaint party against opponent No.1, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum directed opponent No.1/State Bank of India, Branch Waduj, District Satara to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 17,500/ - with interest @ 9%p.a. from 04/08/2005 and also directed to pay Rs. 2,500/ - for mental harassment and cost of Rs. 1,000/ -. As such, State Bank of India has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE facts to the extent material may be stated as under: -

(3.) BOTH the opponents filed written version and contested the matter. After hearing both the parties and on perusal of the documents and affidavits filed by the parties, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum held that it was the duty of opponent No.l/Bank to renew the policy every year by paying premium to opponent No. 2/Insurance Company directly and that amount was to be debited from the Saving Bank account or Pension account of the complainant. Initially the policy was in force upto 15/10/2002. Thereafter, immediately policy was not purchased by the complainant. It was purchased on 15/11/2002, but cow died on 19/11/2002. As per policy condition, if the cow died within 15 days from the date of taking policy, the amount was not payable and that was the stand taken by the Insurance Company and District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum found that on 13/10/2002 the complainant had deposited premium amount with opponent No.1. Opponent No.1. had given third installment of premium of Rs. 1.943/ - to the agent of Insurance Company Shri Ankush Dabade on 13/11/2002. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum found fault with opponent No.l.State Bank of India because the State Bank of India should have immediately given cheque to the Agent of opponent No.2 after 13/10/2002. But the Bank gave cheque on 13/11/2002 and policy was issued with effect from 15/11/2002 to 14/1/2003 and according to District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, there was delay on the part of the Bank in renewing the policy and therefore, the Bank was guilty of deficiency in service in not taking policy immediately after 13/10/2002 and thereby, the complainant was deprived of reimbursement of the amount consequent upon death of the cow, which would have been insured with opponent No.2. Hence, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum allowed the complaint against the * Bank, but exonerated the Insurance Company. Aggrieved by the said award, original opponent No.1 has filed this appeal.