NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, Presiding Member
Bank of India —Petitioner
versus
M/s. Darjeeling Tea House and Ors. —Respondents
Revision Petition No.3758 of 2013
(Against the Order dated 26/07/2013 in Appeal No. 1595/2012 of the State Commission Madhya Pradesh)
Decided on 30.10.2018
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Vipin Jai, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1a-d: Ex-parte
For the Respondent No.2:Mr. Animesh Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent No.3:Mr. Maibam N. Singh, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
When the parties are negligent in their acts, they cannot be granted relief.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act,1986 - Revision – Section 21- On 06.05.2005, the respondent No.1-complainant was sanctioned cash credit facility of Rs.6 lakhs - Respondent No.1-complainant took the insurance policy to cover the risk for the stocks hypothecated with the petitioner bank covering the period 15.6.2005 to 14.6.2006 – As this policy did not cover the entire stock hypothecated, the petitioner/ Bank availed another Shopkeepers Insurance for the period covering 28.4.2006 to 27.4.2007 mentioning the shop address - On 14.8.2006, due to heavy rains the complainant suffered losses of Rs.1,85,950/- towards stocks allegedly lying at his Malviya Nagar godown – Surveyor did not assess the loss as there was no loss caused to the shop but loss occurred at the godown where stocks were kept – Hence, complaint was filed which was allowed directing the Petitioner/ Bank to pay the amount of loss, compensation and costs – Aggrieved with the order, the Petitioner/ Bank filed appeal which was partly allowed – Hence, the present revision – Heard the counsels for the Petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 – Complainant / Respondent 1 remained exparte – Perused the policy terms and the documents – Stocks kept in the godown were insured by the complainant in the earlier policy which was expired by 14.6.2006 – Second policy taken by the Bank though covers the period when loss occurred, the address mentioned is that of shop and not the godown – Hence, repudiation of claim by Insurance company is tenable – There is deficiency on the part of the complainant as well as the Bank and hence, the revision petition is partly allowed and the order of the State Commission dated 26.7.2013 is modified to the extent that the petitioner bank would be liable to pay Rs. 80,000/- to the complainant along with interest as ordered by the State Commission - No order as to costs for this revision petition.
Result: Revision petition is modified. No costs.
This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Bank against the order dated 26.7.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Madhya Pradesh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.1595 of 2012.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 06.05.2005, the respondent No.1-complainant was sanctioned cash credit facility of Rs.6 lakhs under the scheme of Financial Assistance to/for Retails/Small Traders/Small Business for commercial requirements of the respondent No.1-complainant. Respondent No.1-complainant took the insurance policy to cover the risk for the stocks hypothecated with the petitioner bank. The policy bearing policy No.451400/40/05/00329 under the name of Shopkeepers Insurance was active for the period 15.6.2005 to 14.6.2006. The address mentioned in the said policy was shop No.11, New Market, Bhopal. Since the policy taken by the respondent No.1-complainant did not cover the risk for the entire stock hypothecated with the petitioner bank which was worth Rs.22.00 lakhs, the petitioner bank availed of another policy also under the name of Shopkeepers Insurance for the period 28.4.2006 to 27.4.2007. The address mentioned in this policy was similar to the Shopkeepers Insurance taken by the respondent No.1 complainant. On 14.8.2006, due to heavy rains the complainant suffered losses of Rs.1,85,950/- towards stocks allegedly lying at his Malviya Nagar godown. On 23.08.2006, the respondent No.1-complainant informed the surveyor that no loss has occurred at the shop and the loss has occurred in the godown. The claim was not approved by the Insurance Company. Being aggrieved the respondent No.1-complainant filed a complaint being CC No.548/07 before the District Forum, Bhopal on 26.6.2007. The District Forum vide its order dated 26.7.2012 allowed the complaint of the respondent No.1-complainant and directed the petitioner bank to pay a sum of Rs.1,85,950 towards damages as assessed by the respondent No.1-complainant and also directed the petitioner bank to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and further a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost. Being aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the petitioner filed an appeal being appeal No.1595/2012 before the State Commission on 29.8.2012. The State Commission vide its order dated 26.7.2013 partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner bank and observed that the respondent No.1-complainant had already been compensated for the total loss and that further compensation of Rs.10,000/- was unwarranted. However, the petitioner bank was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,85,950/- to the respondent No.1-complainant.
3. Hence the present revision petition.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for respondent Nos.2 & 3. Respondent No.1 was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 22.11.2016 as none appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1 inspite of service of notice.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there was no assessment by the surveyor in respect of the loss, however, the District Forum has accepted the loss as assessed by the complainant himself and accordingly, the District Forum ordered the payment of Rs.1,85,950/- to the complainant. It was argued that the assessment by the complainant himself cannot be taken as ground for awarding the same amount. The District Forum should have examined this assessment and the loss as claimed by the complainant as there has to be some basis for awarding the compensation which should be based on actual loss.
6. It was further stated by the counsel for the petitioner bank that the bank is not the insurer and even if there was some deficiency found against the bank that the bank did not get the insurance policy for the correct risk location, then also bank cannot be held liable for total claimed insurance amount. In fact, the first policy taken by the complainant itself expired on 14.6.2006. However, no effort was made by the complainant to insure the stocks