VIJAY CONCERNS Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions have been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the petitioner against the impugned order dated 19.01.2012, passed by the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in appeals, i.e., Appeal No. 141/2011, "M/s. Vijay Concerns versus State Bank of India & Anr." and Appeal No. 159/2011, "United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus M/s. Vijay Concerns & Anr.", vide which the order dated 10.02.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in complaint case No. 56/2010 was set aside. The District Forum vide their order had allowed the complaint filed by the present petitioner/complainant and ordered the United India Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as 'Insurance Company') to pay a sum of Rs.3.6 lakh to the complainant. The State Commission, however, allowed the appeal of the insurance company and dismissed the complaint.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant, who is a contractor by profession, had initially availed a cash-credit limit of Rs.3 lakh from respondent no. 1/OP No. 1, State Bank of India in the year 2004, which was subsequently raised to Rs.9 lakh. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant is a single ownership firm whose proprietor is Sheetal Sahu. As per the complainant, the OP No. 1 Bank had taken the Insurance Policy from the Insurance Company/OP No. 2 for the security of the loan and paid the requisite premium and deducted the same from the account of the complainant. The policy issued by the Insurance Company is known as Shopkeeper Insurance Policy and was issued in the name of 'State Bank of India Account M/s. Vijay Concerns'. After taking loan from the Bank, the complainant was constructing a bridge at Shivnath River, Gram Girri, District Rajnandgaon. During the construction of the bridge on 15.07.2009, the bridge which was constructed by the complainant was destroyed due to heavy rains and flood. The complainant informed the insurance company which appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. The said surveyor submitted his report on 23.11.2009 and assessed the loss as Rs.3,73,942/-. However, the amount was not paid to the complainant by the Insurance Company taking the stand that the complainant had taken the Shopkeeper Insurance Policy, under which the company was not liable to pay damages for the bridge. The Insurance Company informed that the insurance had been done regarding the building material for the shop situated at Shakti Nagar. The complainant has alleged that it was the duty of the Bank to take correct insurance policy, as they had filled the proposal form themselves. No intimation was given to the complainant by the Bank while filling the proposal form. The policy was got renewed by the Bank from time to time. The complainant alleged that the Bank had committed deficiency in service by filling proposal form wrongly. The complainant demanded a sum of Rs.5,16,451/- for the loss suffered and Rs.25,000/- for mental harassment along with interest @18% p.a. from the OPs. The District Forum after taking into account the evidence of the parties, directed that a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- should be paid by the Insurance Company to the complainant for the loss suffered by him. Two appeals were filed before the State Commission one by the petitioner/complainant and other by the Insurance Company. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner/complainant and allowed the appeal of the Insurance Company and held that both the Bank and the Insurance Company had not committed any deficiency in service, and hence the complainant was dismissed. It is against this order that the present petitions have been filed.

(3.) At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the policy in question was obtained from the Insurance Company by the Bank and they had filled the necessary proposal form. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the terms and conditions of the CC Loan saying that the entire building material kept at the construction sites was hypothecated to the Bank, and hence it should be covered by the insurance policy. The learned counsel has also drawn our attention to the written statement filed by the Bank before the District Forum, in which they have stated that the Insurance Company by mistake had issued the Shopkeeper Insurance Policy. Learned Counsel stated that it was within the knowledge of the Bank that Insurance Policy was wrongly issued; hence they should have got it rectified. Further, on the policy itself, it had been written that the business of the complainant was building material shop. The said building material was to be placed at the construction site only.