K. KASI VISWESWAR RAO Vs. ANDHRA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 16.11.2006 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (for short the 'State Commission ') in FA 269 of 2004, the original complainant K. Kasi Visweshwar Rao has filed the Revision Petition No. . 550 of 2007 whiie Andhra Bank (opposite party No.1 in the complaint) has filed revision petition No. 766 of 2007. The appeal before the State Commission was filed by the complainant against the order dated 15.10.2003 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Kakinada. By the said order, the District Forum had dismissed the complaint against all the opposite parties including the insurance company. The State Commission partly allowed the appeal and also the csenptakt against the Andhra Bank only thereby, directing the bank to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/ - towards the compensation to the complainant with the stipulation that the amount shall be paid within six weeks, failing which the amount would attract interest @ 9% per annum together with cost of Rs. 2,000/ -. In these petitions, the bank seeks for setting aside the said order passed by the State Commission while the complainant seeks upgradation of the relief so granted by the State Commission.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. K. Maruthi Rao, advocate counsel for the petitioner -complainant in petition No. 550 of 2007 and the respondent No. -1 in the other petition, Mr. Anil Tiwari, advocate counsel for the petitioner -Andhra Bank in revision petition No. 760 of 2007 arid respondent No. 1 -3 in revision petition No. 550 of 2007 as also Mr. S.K. Ray, advocate representing the respondent -insurance company in these petitions and have considered their submissions.

(3.) THE State Commission though affirmed the finding of the District Forum so far as it had exonerated the insurance company from making any payment to the complainant but it held the bank guilty of contributory negligence in not taking a comprehensive policy covering the risk of cyclone, flood and inundation, which was a potential risk having regard to the area where the poultry farm of the complainant was situated. In reaching the said findings, the State Commission has relied upon Clause -5 of the agreement for obtaining cash credit limit has given the following reasons: