B.SHANKAR Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against the impugned order dated 29.10.2009 passed by the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission ') in FA No. 106/2007, "B. Shankar versus Union Bank of India and Anr. ", vide which while allowing the appeal, order passed by the District Forum, Hyderabad in consumer complaint no. 42/2006 dated 20.12.2006, dismissing the complaint, was set aside.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant, B. Shankar purchased a vehicle Tata Indica for Rs.3,45,959.42/ - by raising finance from OP No. 1, Union Bank of India for the purpose of earning his livelihood. He spent a sum of Rs.23,062/ - towards extra fittings to the vehicle. The said vehicle was insured with OP No. 2, M/s. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant is holder of savings bank account bearing no. 6148 with the OP No. 1, Union Bank of India and he is regularly using this bank account and maintaining sufficient balance in the same. The complainant issued cheque bearing number 282302 dated 16.6.2004 for Rs.9,623/ - drawn on OP No.1, Union Bank of India in favour of OP No. 2, Tata AIG General Insurance Co., towards payment of insurance premium for the vehicle and he also paid a cash amount of Rs.449/ - to OP No. 2 in order to get the insurance policy of the vehicle renewed for a period of one year from 16.6.2004. The complainant was always under this impression that the insurance policy had been renewed with effect from 16.6.2004. In the meanwhile, the vehicle, in question, was stolen on the mid -night of 09.07.2004. The complainant lodged an FIR with the Police and also informed OP No. 2 Insurance Company regarding the theft and requested for payment of insurance claim. However, the said claim was rejected by OP No. 2 and they informed the complainant that his cheque bearing number 282302 dated 16.06.2004 for Rs.9,623/ - had been dishonoured by OP No.1 and hence the insurance policy could not be renewed. The complainant then contacted OP No. 1 bank, where it was found that there was sufficient balance in the account of the complainant. The bank authorities vide their letter dated 13.07.2004 sent to the OP No. 2 insurance company stated that their counter clerk / officer had inadvertently returned the cheque issued by the complainant by oversight on 18.06.2004 and there was sufficient balance in savings account no. 6148 of the complainant. They also issued a banker 's cheque dated 13.07.2004 for Rs.9623/ - in favour of OP No. 2 but the OP No. 2 rejected the said request and also rejected the claim filed by the complainant as the vehicle had already been stolen by that time. The complainant thereafter filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking relief that the OP should be directed to pay Rs.4 lakh towards the cost of the vehicle, Rs.1 lakh as compensation for mental agony and loss and a cost of Rs.3,000/ -. The District Forum dismissed the complaint and observed that the complainant was at liberty to approach the civil court for appropriate relief. An appeal filed against this order by the complainant was allowed as per the impugned order and the OPs were directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/ - towards compensation and a cost of Rs.5,000/ - to the complainant within four weeks, failing which the said amount shall attract interest @ 9% p.a. It was observed by the State Commission that although the value of the vehicle was Rs.4 lakh, they were allowing only Rs.1.5 lakh as vehicle had already run for a period of 6 years. Against this impugned order, the complainant has filed Revision Petition No. 4621/2009 for enhancement of the compensation and Union Bank of India has filed Revision Petition No. 2048/2010 challenging the said order.

(3.) AT the time of arguments before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner Union Bank of India, stated categorically that the cheque, in question, was never produced before the Bank. He also stated that the letter dated 13.07.2004 purported to have been issued by the Bank is a false and forged document and such a document was never issued by the Bank.