RAHUL ELECTRICALS Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 17.05.2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana ( in short, 'the State Commission ') dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner / complainant against the order of the District Consumer Forum Rohtak dismissing the complaint.

(2.) BRIEFLY put relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that M/s Rahul Electricals filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the respondents State Bank of India as also the Oriental Insurance Company Limited claiming that the complainant was engaged in the business of electrical goods. Complainant had obtained a cash credit limit of Rs.3 lakhs from the respondent / bank against the hypothecation of the stock. It is the case of the complainant that as per the agreement, the stock of the complainant was required to be insured and the opposite party / bank had agreed to get the stock insured on behalf of the complainant and debit the insurance premium to the cash credit account of the complainant. Pursuant to the agreement, the opposite party / bank had been getting the stock insured with the insurance company and the last insurance was for the period w.e.f. 25th May 2006 to 24th May, 2007. It is alleged in the complaint that after 24th May, 2007, the opposite party / bank failed to renew the insurance. Unfortunately on 30.05.2007 the shop of the complainant caught fire due to electrical spark and the entire stock was destroyed. The complaint in this regard was lodged at PS Rohtak City vide DD No.46 dated 31.05.2007. The complainant approached the opposite party / bank to disclose the name of the insurance company with whom he had got the stock insured. The opposite party bank after evading the issue for sometime, ultimately replied that as per the agreement, the insurance was to be got done by the complainant himself. Claimant alleging the failure of the bank to renew the insurance of the stock as deficiency in service filed complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs.6,27, 870/ - on account of loss suffered due to fire accident besides Rs.2,00,000/ - on account of mental pain and agony. The complainant also sought direction to the opposite party bank to stop charging interest on the over draft w.e.f. 25.05.2007.

(3.) OP No.2 took the plea that it was neither necessary nor proper party because on the date of fire accident, the stock of the complainant was not insured with the insurance company.