VYAVASAYA SEVA SAHAKARI BANK LTD Vs. SANNADYAMANAGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three revision petitions have been filed by the Vyavsaya Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd., Dharwad, opposite party no. 2 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Dharwad ( District Forum for short) against the order dated 28th of February, 2006 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore ( State Commission for short), by which the State Commission has dismissed the three appeals filed by them on the ground of delay as also on merits of the case.

(2.) Facts of the case are that three complainants, who are agriculturists, had participated in the Crop Insurance Scheme floatfed by the Government. They had paid the requisite premium towards the crop insurance for the year 2003-04. The said premium had been remitted to the General Insurance Corporation of India, respondent no.2/opposite party no.1, through the petitioner-Vyavsaya Seva Sahakari Bank Ltd. To their misfortune, there was failure of the crop due to drought conditions and the General Insurance Corporation of India indemnified the damaged crop and remitted the insurance compensation amount as per eligibility of each one of the claimants/complainants to the petitioner-Bank. Taking recourse to their right of lien, the petitioner-Bank recovered the loan amounts due from each one of the complainants from the crop insurance compensation amount and paid only the balance after adjustment of the loan. According to the complainants, even though they had requested the petitioner-Bank not to adjust their crop insurance amount against their loans, they paid no heed. They thereafter filed separate complaints before the District Forum, who, on consideration of the pleadings and evidence before it, allowed the complaints and directed the petitioner-Bank to pay the full amount of crop insurance as received from the General Insurance Corporation of India with 9% interest w.e.f. 8th of October, 2004 till payment. It also gave liberty to the petitioner-Bank to separately proceed against the complainants for recovery of the loan amount, if any.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner-Bank has contended that the State Commission has not condoned even a small delay of 12 days in filing the appeals and has gone on to dismiss the appeals by passing a non-speaking cryptic order. The order does not discuss the grounds advanced in the memorandum of appeals filed by the petitioner-Bank and on this count alone the order of the State Commission is liable to be set aside. However, dilating on the merits as discussed by the District Forum, the learned counsel has submitted that the fora below have failed to appreciate that the complainants had voluntarily paid their loan amounts by way of cheques towards the adjustment of their dues and this fact had been suppressed from them. No authority can force an individual to sign his own cheque and it was a voluntary act with consent and, therefore, there was no question of any deficiency in service. It should have been appreciated that the Bank has a general lien over the loan amounts due and, even otherwise, the Bank was entitled to adjust the receipt against their loan account. However, that is not the case here as the complainants themselves had issued the cheques corresponding to the dues that stood on their loan accounts.