V NARAYANAN Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this appeal, the original complainant, namely, Mr. V. Narayanan seeks to challenge the order dated 13.04.2010 passed by the Tamil Nadu States Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, 'the State Commission') in C. C. S. R. No. 189 of 2010, whereby complaint of the complainant was dismissed as vexatious and complainant was saddled with the cost of Rs. 10,000/- which he has been called upon to deposit in the Legal Aid Account of the State Commission within one month by means of a demand draft with the stipulation that in case the cost is not deposited, the same may be realized by invoking the provisions of section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

(2.) We have heard Mr. Vipin Gogia, learned counsel representing the appellant at great length and have given our thoughtful consideration to his submissions. Before we dwell on the same, we would like to briefly notice the background preceding the complaint before the State Commission. It would appear that the complainant is a partner of Sealark Fisheries which owned fishing boats for its business. In 1976, Sealark Fisheries had availed of agricultural loan of Rs. 1.75 lakh from the opposite party - Canara Bank, Nungambakkam Branch. Sealark Fisheries had acquired a fishing boat from M/s Aqua Marine Pvt. , Ambattur at a price of Rs. 2.35 lakh and had hypothecated the same with the opposite party-Bank after furnishing collateral security. The Bank had been taking insurance coverage in respect of the fishing boat in order to safeguard its banking interest and had also obtained one such insurance on 12.4.79 from United India Insurance Company and got it renewed for the next year commencing from 12.04.1980. During the currency of the said insurance, on 21.07.1980, the insured fishing boat met with an accident, capsized and could not be traced and, therefore, the Bank lodged a claim on the insurance company which was repudiated on the ground that the Bank had submitted a blank / incomplete proposal form. Aggrieved by such repudiation of the claim, the complainant and the Canara Bank filed Civil Suit No. CS/333/83 against the United India Insurance Company in the High Court of Madras. But according to the complainant, after filing the said suit, the co-plaintiff Canara Bank did not cooperate in pursuing the said suit. The learned single Judge of the High Court of Madras decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the decision of the learned single Judge, the defendant United India Insurance Company filed latter Patent appeal No. OSA/48/1998 and at the same time deposited the decreetal amount in the Court. Though the said appeal was initially dismissed on 11.12.2002 but it was revived / refiled and was allowed on contest and the judgment and decree passed by the learned single Judge was set aside. Aggrieved by the decision of the Madras High Court in appeal, the complainant filed Civil Appeal No. 803 of 2008 in the Supreme Court. The said appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 30.01.2008 with certain observations. Vide another order dated 07.07.2009, the Supreme Court modified its earlier order dated 30.01.2008 dismissing the said SLP/ Civil Appeal. It would appear that based on certain observations made in the order disposing of the said appeal, the complainant filed this complaint before the State Commission.

(3.) In the complaint it was averred that the Supreme Court, accepting the argument of the Insurance Company, observed that the policy became null and void due to suppression of material facts in the proposal form by the opposite party inasmuch as the insurance agent had not furnished necessary particulars in all the coloumns even when the proposal form had been returned to the Bank for checking up and correction. From those observations, it was clearly established before the State Commission that the opposite party-Bank alone was responsible for the loss of the fishing boat. Accordingly, the complainant called upon the Chairman and Managing Director of the opposite party-Bank to pay the claim in respect of the loss of the fishing boat with interest @ 19.5% w. e. f. date of accident. The Bank instead of paying the amount, started claiming the money from the complainant which resulted in great loss and hardship to the complainant. According to the complainant, the cause of action of the above complaint arose on 07.07.09, the date on which the Supreme Court modified its earlier order dated 30.01.2008 and on earlier occasions when the opposite party: