CHAIRMAN INDIAN BANK Vs. CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed on behalf of the Chairman Indian Bank and Manager Indian Bank Tiruchirapalli against the order of Tamilnadau State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No. 194 of 2011. The matter arose out of a House Construction loan taken by respondent/Complainant from the revision petitioners/OPs in 2003. The construction of the house was completed in September, 2004 and the building got damaged by floods in November, 2005. The Complainant claimed compensation from the OPs, alleging that the Bank had failed to insure the property. As per the complaint petition, it was responsibility of the Bank to insure it. The borrower was not required to send any proposal to Bank in this behalf and the premium was also debited to his account. After the matter was taken up by the Complainant with the Bank, the later, as alleged in the Complaint, 'realised their mistake, they hurriedly went to the United India insurance company and insured the house of the complainant No:1 on December 3rd, 2005 as it is mandatory for the bank to insure the mortgaged property. Since the insurance was post-floods, the insurance company could not pay'.

(2.) This claim was contested on behalf of the OPs relying primarily on clause 13 of the 'TERM LOAN AGREMENT FOR HOUSING FINANACE' executed between the parties. Clause 13 reads as follows:-

(3.) The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the Complainant had failed to establish that the opposite parties have failed to take insurance of the house when they were under an obligation to do so. Therefore, the District Forum held that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. The decision of the District Forum was reversed by the State Commission and the appeal of the Complainant was allowed with compensation and cost.