Back
HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.S. Madan, President, Dr. Rekha Sharma and Diwan Singh Chauhan, Members
STATE BANK OF INDIA - Appellant
Versus
PANGHAL AUTO INDUSTRIES - Respondent
First Appeal No. 2186 of 2006
Decided on : 13-02-2009
Mr. S.P. Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Anil Kumar Gehlawat, Advocate, for the Respondent
Failure to provide necessary documentation, such as monthly stock statements, can result in the dismissal of an insurance claim.
Headnote:
Insurance - Stock Statement - The court found that the complainant failed to provide monthly stock statements to the bank, which resulted in the stock not being insured. The court upheld the dissenting view that the complaint should be dismissed due to the lack of evidence provided by the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant took insurance for stocks but failed to provide monthly stock statements to the bank. After a flood incident, the complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum.
Finding of the Court:
The majority view of the District Forum accepted the complaint and directed the opposite party to pay the full insured amount to the complainant. However, the dissenting view dismissed the complaint, which was upheld by the court.
Issues: Failure to provide monthly stock statements, lack of evidence on the part of the complainant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the complainant's failure to provide monthly stock statements to the bank resulted in the stock not being insured, and therefore upheld the dissenting view that the complaint should be dismissed.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, the impugned order passed by the majority view was set aside, and the complaint was dismissed.
ORDER
R.S. Madan, President - Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the respondent-complainant M/s. Panghal Auto Industries got a Cash Credit (Stocks) of Rs. 2 lacs and 25% amount was deposited by the complainant. Thus, the complainant took insurance of Rs. 2,50,000. On 11.7.2006 all the records, items and other items of polish flown in the flood. An intimation regarding the flood was given to the appellant-opposite party on 12.7.2006 but nothing needful was done by the appellant. Compelled under the circumstances, the respondent-complainant invoked the jurisdiction of the District Forum.
2. Upon notice, the appellant-opposite party appeared and contested the complaint. It denied the allegations levelled in the complaint and took the plea that the respondent-complainant had not supplied the Stock Statement to the Bank as per rules. It was prayed that the complaint merited dismissal.
3. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and evidence brought on record, the President and one Member of the District Forum accepted the complaint vide order dated 4.7.2007 and granted the following relief to the respondent-complainant:
"To conclude, the instant complaint is allowed by directing the opposite party to pay the full insured amount to the complainant as per policy within 45 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order failing which interest @ 9% p.a. shall be liable to be paid over this amount. Parties are left to bear their own costs."
4. Mr. Abhishek Jain, Senior Member of the District Forum did not agree with the view of the Presindent and Mr. Nutan Jagia, Member of the Forum and by recording his dissenting view dismissed the complaint vide order dated 4.7.2007.
5. Aggrieved against the majority view of the District Forum, the appellant-opposite party has come up in appeal.
6. Heard.
7. At the threshold of arguments, learned Counsel for the appellant has argued that the complainant in his complaint has nowhere mentioned that what tye and how much loss was suffered by him. The complainant has failed to produce the stock statement furnished by him to the Bank from time-to-time as per the loan condition to enable the Bank to get the stock insured of the item detailed in the stock statement which admittedly could not be done by the Bank in the absence of the monthly stock statements. Thus, in absence of any cogent evidence on the part of the complainant, the complaint ought to have been dismissed by the District Forum.
8. Opposing the submission made on behalf of the appellant, learned Counsel representing the respondent has supported the finding recorded in the majority view of the District Forum and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
9. Having perused the contentions of both the Counsel and the documents placed on record, we find force in the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant for the reason that the complainant has miserably failed to provide monthly stock statements of the Bank. Mere submitting of the stock statement in the Consumer Forum without getting it verified from the Bank is no statement of stock. It is well established on record that the complainant did not supply the stock information to the Bank after 31.10.2005 and submitted the same on 18.8.2006 i.e., after the alleged incident of flood. More so, the Bank authorities had written a letter dated 26.12.2005 Ex. O.P. 3 to the complainant to submit the stock statement with specific averments therein that "you have failed to submit the stock statement and your account is irregular, therefore, regularize your account within 7 days from the date of this notice failing which liability will be yours."
10. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the District Forum is illegal, unwarranted, uncalled for and the same has no legs to stand. The approach of the minority view taken by the District Forum by its Memb
