Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.B. Gupta, Presiding Member and Rekha Gupta, Member
MOHAN AND ORS. - Appellants
Versus
AJMER CO-OPERATIVE LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.- Respondent
Revision Petition Nos. 3590 of 2009 and 280 of 2010 from Order dated 13.7.2009 in First Appeal No. 696 of 2004 of Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur
Decided on : 27-08-2013
Mr. Jitendra Mitrucka, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Rajeev Mantri, Advocate, for the Respondent
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of contractual obligations and the allocation of responsibility for insurance renewal, which influenced the court's decision to dismiss the complaint.
Headnote:
Insurance - Tractor Loan - [Consumer Protection] - [Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 21] - The court discussed the responsibility of the bank to renew the insurance policy for the tractor and the liability of the bank in case of an accident. The court also highlighted the terms of the deed of hypothecation and the responsibility of the debtor in keeping the property insured. The interpretation of the contractual obligations and the negligence of the respondents influenced the court's decision to set aside the State Commission's order and dismiss the complaint.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents had taken a loan to purchase a tractor and alleged that the bank neglected to renew the insurance policy, leading to a liability in a claim case. The District Forum dismissed the complaint, but the State Commission allowed it and awarded compensation to the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the responsibility for insurance renewal was with the debtor, as per the deed of hypothecation. It concluded that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the bank and set aside the State Commission's order, dismissing the complaint.
Issues: The main issues were the responsibility for renewing the insurance policy and the liability in case of an accident. The court also considered the contractual obligations and the negligence of the respondents.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the deed of hypothecation, which placed the responsibility for insurance on the debtor. It also considered the lack of evidence of any contract or instructions for the bank to renew the insurance policy.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision petition filed by the bank, setting aside the State Commission's order, and dismissed the revision petition filed by the respondents, thereby dismissing the original complaint.
ORDER
Mrs. Rekha Gupta, Member - Revision Petition No. 3590 of 2009 and Revision Petition No. 280 of 2010 have been filed against the common judgment and order dated 13.7.2009 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur ( the State Commission ) in appeal No. 696 of 2004.
2. Revision petition No. 3590 of 2009 has been filed by the original complainant Mohan, Ranjeet Chaggan Lal and Prabhu for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the State Commission. Whereas revision petition No. 280 of 2010 has been filed by the opposite party in the original complaint, i.e., Ajmer Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd., Ajmer for setting aside the judgment and order dated 13.7.2009 passed by the State Commission in appeal No. 686 of 2004.
3. The facts of the case as also the orders passed by the District Forum and the State Commission in both the cases are identical and hence, the facts of the case are being taken from RP No. 280 of 2010.
4. The brief facts of the complaint filed by the respondents/complainants are as follows:
5. The respondents/complainants had made an application for loan to purchase tractor on hire-purchase system for his livelihood, which was duly registered with Transport Department, Registration No. RJ 01 R 1806, endorsing hypothecation in favour of the respondent Bank. The respondents had taken loan and purchased the tractor. Thereafter the bank completed all its formalities as per banking rules and collected the miscellaneous expenses from the respondents and issued a receipt.
6. The respondents have paid to the petitioners for insurance premium of Rs. 1477 for the tractor on hire purchase loan, other application process expenses Rs. 19,500 on 30.5.1997 and Bank issued the receipt for the aforesaid amount. The Bank has not deposited the insurance premium for tractor. In this way the Bank has neglected the responsibility and liability to depositing the premium for tractor, despite collecting the money of premium from the respondents.
7. An accident occurred to the tractor and a claim was filed by Farida Khatoon and Ors. Case No. 539/1999 in the Hon'ble Court of MACT, Ajmer. The Hon'ble Tribunal has given judgment on 11.6.2003 which reads as follows:
"The compensation application of Farida Khatoon and Ors., is partly accepted and passed order that non-complainant (Mohan and Ors.) are jointly entitled to get Rs. 5,36,136. If any other amount received by them, may be deducted and balance may be paid w.e.f. 15.2.1999 along with 9% interest. Complainant (Mohan and Ors.) may deposited a cheque in favour of Smt. Farida Khatoon."
8. The respondent filed a petition against Bank with the District Forum which was treated pre-mature and vide order dated 17.1.2001.
9. In their written statement the petitioner/opposite party, i.e. the Bank while accepting that the respondents had purchased the tractor No. RJ 01 R 1806 after taking loan from the Bank on hire purchase, stated that the Bank's name had been mentioned in RC book as they were the financier.
10. The respondents Mohan, Ranjeet, Chhagan, Prabhu all sons of Shri Ram Pratap Jat resident of Ramner Dhani, Tehsil and District Ajmer are the members of the Bank. They had deposited Rs. 19,500 on 5/1997 which include penal interest of Rs. 78 and principal amount of Rs. 181 and plus interest of Rs. 17,764 and part of insurance premium of Rs. 1,477 for the period of 31.3.1996 to 30.3.1997. Whereas the insurance premium is Rs. 1,977 the respondents have deposited less amount of Rs. 500, which is due till date.
11. It is quite clear that it is the prime responsibility of the respondents to pay insurance premium as debtors and within time. Amount deposited by the loanee member on 30.5.1997 is Rs. 19,500 has been credited, and Rs. 500 is still outstanding for the insurance period of 31.3.1996 to 30.3.1997, therefore, no amount has been paid by the respondent nor any such contract has taken place for depositing the insurance amount by the bank. It is also a fact
