STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. KASHMIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State Bank of India, Nazibabad Branch, Nazibabad, District Bijnor, who was the opposite party No. 1 in the complaint filed by the complainant-Kashmir Singh, has filed this revision petition under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, the Act ) against the order dated 15.09.2008 passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (for short, the State Commission ). By the impugned order dated 15.09.2008, the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner-Bank against the order dated 6.6.2003 of the District Consumer Forum, Bijnor. By the aforesaid order, the District Consumer Forum allowed the complaint filed by Kashmir Singh and directed the petitioner-bank to pay a compensation of Rs. 53,020/- with interest @12% from 17.12.1997 till the date of payment besides cost of Rs.3,000/-.

(2.) The facts and circumstances, which led to the filing of the complaint and then the appeal before the State Commission have been amply noted by the State Commission in detail in the impugned order and need no repetition at our end. Consumer dispute raised before the District Consumer Forum was in regard to the non-settlement of a claim of Rs.53,020/-, which the complainant, Kashmir Singh had incurred in repair of his Mahindra Tractor bearing registration No. UAK 7738, which met with an accident at an unmanned railway crossing on 28.2.1996. The complainant had obtained loan of Rs.1,06,000/-, therefore, the tractor in question was hypothecated with the State Bank of India. According to the complainant, the bank had been taking insurance for the said tractor from opposite party No. 2, Oriental Insurance Company Limited but the insurance company had repudiated the claim on the ground that there was no insurance coverage for the tractor as on the date of accident i.e. 28.2.1996, opposite party No. 1-bank having not remitted the requisite premium to the insurance company for the relevant period. The bank though admitted that a sum of Rs.1022/- was debited towards premium from the loan account of the complainant on 14.12.2005 and the said amount alongwith insurance premiums in respect of other borrowers was also remitted to the insurance company through its agent but the insurance company delayed the issuance of policy/renewal of policy uptil April, 1996 and therefore, the deficiency in service if any committed is on the part of the insurance company rather than the bank. The parties led evidence, the complainant having filed his own affidavit and the bank having filed the affidavit of Mr. Balbir Singh, Manager (Personnel), State Bank of India, Bijnor in support of their plea about the handing over the cheque No. 348292 in the sum of Rs. 4937/- including the premium of Rs.1022/- debited from the account of the complainant to the Development Officer of the insurance Company in December, 1995 itself while the insurance company filed affidavit of Shri Mohd. Afaq Ahmad, Development Officer, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Nazibabad Branch denying that any such cheque was given to him on 14.12.1995 and rather confirmed that a cheque was given to him only on 12.4.1995 and on the same date, he (deponent) issued cover note No. 21685 for covering the tractor of the complainant for the period from 12.4.1996 to 11.4.1997.

(3.) The State Commission going by the evidence and material brought on record, found no deficiency on the part of the insurance company and held that it was due to the negligence/deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner-bank that the insurance in respect of the tractor in question could not be renewed in time by the bank before it expired and accordingly made the order against it. It would appear that in appeal before the State Commission, there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant-bank at the time of hearing of the appeal but the State Commission going by the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence and the material obtaining on record, considered the grounds set up in the memorandum of appeal and has dismissed the appeal affirming the order of the District Forum.