IMPORTANT POINT
When debit balance of complainant starts growing due to defaults in loan repayment of installments then Bank as per trade norms is not expected to enhance further debit in his loan account by insuring financed vehicle further.

V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member—Being aggrieved by order dated 31.12.2012, passed by Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raipur (for short, ‘State Commission’) petitioner/complainant has filed this revision petition.

2. Brief facts are that petitioner purchased a tractor & trolley which was financed by Respondent/Opposite party in year 2004 and for which a loan account was opened. It is stated that loan repayment was being done and as per the terms of loan agreement, respondent had been insuring the tractor and trolley every year. It is further stated that tractor and trolley met with an accident on 24.4.2010 resultantly the same got fully burnt, whereby no physical loss was there. A report was made to the Police and intimation was given to the respondent. Thereafter, petitioner filed claim with the respondent. However, he was informed that insurance of the tractor and trolley for the relevant period from 2009 to 2010 was not done by the respondent. It is alleged that the act of respondent in not getting petitioner’s tractor and trolley insured, amounts to deficiency in service. A survey was got done by registered Surveyor who assessed the complete loss for Rs.3,65,000/-. Thereafter, petitioner filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sarguja-Ambikapur(for short, ‘District Forum’) seeking direction to the respondent to pay compensation of Rs.3,65,000/- and not to charge interest on his loan account for the period after 24.6.2010. Compensation towards mental and physical harassment for Rs.50,000/- and interest @ 9% p.a. on the total amount together with cost of litigation, was also sought.

3. Respondent in its written statement has stated that petitioner was not regular in repayment of the loan installments due from 18.09.2007 and Rs.2,49,448.85 was outstanding in his loan account. Hence, the loan account became “Bad Debt” which came in the category of ‘Non Productive Account’ (for short, ‘N.P.A’). Thus, in accordance with Bank Rules, insurance was not done thereafter. It is further stated that petitioner was intimated to the effect that his loan account became N.P.A. So, as per Bank Rules it was his duty to get the insurance done. As loan account became a bad debt on 29.05.2010 so insurance for the relevant period from 2009 to 2010 was not done by the respondent. Thus, petitioner has not come with clean hands, as such he is not entitled for any compensation.

4. District Forum, vide order dated 30.8.2011 allowed the complaint and passed following directions;

“(i) Non-applicant will pay an amount of Rs.2,73,750/- (Rupees two lac seventy three thousand seven hundred fifty only) to the complainant within 1 (one) month from the date of order and will pay simple interest @ 6% (six percent) from 16.11.2010 i.e. the date of institution of the dispute till the date of payment of entire amount.

ii) Non-applicant will pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousand only) in respect of the physical and mental trouble and inconvenience suffered by the complainant.

iii) Non-applicant will bear its own expenses and Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand only) towards expenses of the dispute of the complainant in which fee of the advocate has also been included.

iv) Complainant will give salvage of the vehicle Tractor No. CG 15A 3324 and trolley No.CG15A 3325 to the non-applicant within 1 (one) month from the date of the order and non-applicant bank can use/utilize the same”.

5. Being aggrieved, respondent filed an appeal before the State Commission which allowed the same, vide impugned order and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner.

6. Hence, this revision petition.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and gone through the record.

8. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as petitioner’s account was converted into a ‘Non Productive Account’, thus respondent was under lawful duty to continue or renew the insurance policy from 27.