CANARA BANK Vs. DEEP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 03.02.2012 passed by the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short 'the State Commission') in FA No. 1297/2010, Canara Bank versus Deep Chand & Ors." vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 02.06.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, allowing the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants, Deep Chand and Lal Chand, was upheld.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that both the complainants/respondents nos. 1 & 2 Deep Chand & Lal Chand applied for a loan for purchase of a tractor in the year 1994 which was sanctioned by petitioner/OP No. 1 Canara Bank for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/-. A hypothecation/hire-purchase agreement was also executed in respect of the said tractor between the complainants and the petitioner/OP No.1. As stated by the complainants, it was agreed between the parties that the tractor would be got insured by the petitioner/OP No.1 from time to time and the amount of premium payable to the insurance company would be debited to the account of the complainants. The tractor was got insured at the time of purchase with respondent no.3/OP No.2 in December 1994. Thereafter, the insurance policy was renewed for another year and was valid upto 4.12.96. The complainants have alleged that the petitioner failed to get the insurance policy renewed for a further period and in the meantime, the tractor met with an accident. At the time of settlement of motor accident claim, an amount of Rs.2.65 lakh had to be paid by the complainants, because the insurance company refused to make payment in the absence of a valid insurance policy. It has also been stated that for further period before December 1996, the insurance was again got made by the petitioner. The complainants then filed consumer complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner and demanding a total sum of Rs.3 lakh with interest @12% p.a. as damages/compensation. The District Forum vide order dated 02.06.2010 directed the present petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.2.65 lakh along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment. The petitioner was also directed to pay a sum of Rs.2200/- as litigation expenses to the complainants. An appeal filed against this order was dismissed by the State Commission on grounds of limitation as well as on merits. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed.

(3.) While arguing the case, the learned counsel for the petitioner Canara Bank has drawn our attention to a document with the title 'Memorandum of Agreement for agricultural loans' which was signed on 30.11.94 between the two complainants and the petitioner Bank. It has been stated in para 21 of this document that it was the duty of the borrower to take comprehensive insurance cover in respect of the said tractor. The learned counsel argued that if the party authorises the Bank to take insurance cover, then it becomes the duty of the Bank to get that cover. In the instant case, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner as the obligation to take insurance cover was upon the complainants.