STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. ASHOK SINGH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the merger of the State Bank of Indore, the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, with the State Bank of India, this Revision Petition, under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), has been filed by the State Bank of India against the order dated 07.02.2013, passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Bhopal (for short "the State Commission") in Appeal No. 2940 of 2008. By the impugned order, the State Commission has overturned the order dated 06.11.2008, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Morena (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 103 of 2008, by which the District Forum had dismissed the Complaint preferred by the Respondent/Complainant. Consequently, while partly allowing the Appeal, preferred by the Complainant, the State Commission has directed the Petitioner herein to pay to the Complainant a sum of 1,39,500/- with 6% interest from the date of the Complaint, i.e. 24.04.2008, till payment, besides 2,000/- towards litigation costs.

(2.) Succinctly put, the facts giving rise to the present Revision Petition, are: 2. 1 In order to earn his livelihood by agricultural operations, the Complainant had purchased a tractor by taking an agricultural loan from the Petitioner Bank. To safeguard its interest, the Petitioner Bank used to take insurance policy in respect of the said tractor regularly every year and the premium amount used to be debited to the loan account of the Complainant. Unfortunately, the subject tractor got stolen in the night intervening 7th and 8th January, 2008. The Complainant lodged the complaint with the local police on the date of the incident itself. On insurance of the tractor, the policy/cover note used to be issued to the Petitioner only. On happening of the said incident, the Complainant requested the Petitioner to furnish the insurance policy, in order to prefer claim for indemnification of the loss suffered by him, with the Insurance Company, but the same was not supplied. Instead the Petitioner told the Complainant that necessary intimation in this regard would be given by them to the Insurance Company concerned. However, despite repeated requests, the Petitioner did not provide the insurance policy to the Complainant. In the month of January, 2008, when the Complainant visited the office of the Petitioner and requested its officials to provide necessary documents, relating to intimation of the stolen tractor to the Insurance Company, the Complainant was told that as soon as the Petitioner will receive the claim documents from the Insurance Company, he would be called to complete the necessary formalities. It was averred in the Complaint that in the month of February, 2008, the Complainant again visited the office of the Petitioner and was shocked to learn that due to negligence and mistake of the officers/officials concerned of the Petitioner Bank the insurance policy for the tractor in question was not renewed for the year 2007-08. The Complainant demanded original copies of all the previous insurance policies of the tractor in question as also the statement of his loan account. In response thereto, the Petitioner supplied incomplete insurance policies and statement of his account to the Complainant. On perusal of the policy, valid for the period from 25.04.2006 to 24.04.2007, the Complainant came to know that the tractor in question was insured by the Petitioner for a paltry sum of 1,55,000/- whereas its value was 2,50,000/- and, when the Complainant raised a query in this regard, there was no response from the Petitioner. 2. 2 In the aforesaid background, alleging gross deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner Bank in getting the tractor in question insured only for a sum of 1,55,000/-, instead of its value of 2,50,000/-, for the year 2006-07 and in renewing the policy for the year 2007-08, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum. The Complainant prayed for a direction to the Petitioner to pay to him a sum of 2,50,000/- towards cost of the tractor in question with interest, from the date of the Complaint till realization; 30,000/- as compensation for the mental and physical sufferings undergone by him and 5,000/- towards litigation costs. Further, the Complainant had also prayed for issuance of NOC in respect of his loan account maintained by the Petitioner.

(3.) Upon notice, the Petitioner Bank contested the Complaint by filing its Written Version.