SYNDICATE BANK Vs. NAGARATH MECHANICAL WORKS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There has been delay of 32 days in preferring the first appeal beyond the prescribed period of limitation, for which an application for condonation of delay has also been filed. Having gone through the reasonings assigned therein, we hereby condone the delay.

(2.) This appeal arises out of the judgment in Complaint Case No. C-109/94 rendered by the State Commission, Delhi. By the impugned judgment and order, the State Commission directed the appellant-Bank to pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000 to the respondent, on account of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.

(3.) The complainant (respondent herein) was having over-draft facility with the appellant Bank. He approached the State Commission alleging that the appellant-Bank committed act of 'deficiency in the services' due to its failure to obtain insurance cover for 'burglary' though it was required to be obtained in pursuance to the earlier practice and the instructions in this behalf. The complainant came out with a case that the appellant - Bank used to take insurance policy so as to cover risk of 'fire and burglary' since 1978 and, therefore, was required to renew such policies, from time-to-time. The complainant further alleged that the appellant- Bank failed to renew the policy for the relevant year 1991-1992, without any particular instruction to stop the insurance cover for risk of 'burglary'. The complainant alleged that there took place theft in his factory premises in the night intervening between 13th and 14th January, 1992. He visited the factory premises and found that brass, scrap, casting, semi-finished material, etc., were stolen away. The value of the stolen articles was Rs. 1,93,600. The complainant lodged First Information Report (FIR) with the Police in the morning of 14.1.1992 and on the same day, gave information to the Insurance Company about the theft. In pursuance to his letter, dated 14.1.1992, the Insurance Company repudiated the liability on the ground that the insurance policy covered only risk of damage caused due to fire and it did not cover the risk on account of 'theft' or 'burglary'. The complainant vide a letter, dated 7.9.1992 addressed to the Manager of the appellant - Bank requested the Bank to send the insurance policy obtained against risk of 'burglary' for the relevant period. The appellant- Bank informed him that the insurance policy covered only risk of damage caused due to fire and there was no 'burglary insurance policy' obtained on his behalf. The appellant further made it clear in the said letter dated 15.9.1992 that in 1990, the ODH (Over-draft against hypothecation of goods) account was closed and thereafter insurance cover for 'burglary' or 'theft' was not obtained on behalf of the complainant. The complainant filed complaint before the State Commission alleging that the appellant - Bank was under obligation to obtain the burglary insurance and committed deficiency in the service on account of the omission to take such insurance policy on his behalf. The complainant further alleged that the appellant - Bank was liable to compensate him for the loss of the goods and on account of undue harassment, mental agony and expenditure required for filing of the complaint.