STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND, DEHRADUN FIRST APPEAL NO. 03 / 2013 Punjab National Bank Branch Purola, District Uttarkashi Through Branch Manager Sh. Vijay Srivastava ……Appellant / Opposite Party No. 2 Versus

1. Sh. Janak Singh w/o Sh. Prithvi Singh R/o Village & Post Kantari, Tehsil Purola, District Uttarkashi ….…Respondent No. 1 / Complainant

2. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd.

34A Model House, New Tehri Through Branch Manager ….…Respondent No. 2 / Opposite Party No. 1 Sh. Vijai Kumar Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Sh. Shardul Negi, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 Smt. Anjali Gusain, Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 Coram: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II Mr. Bhagwat Singh Manral, Member Dated: 03/01/2022

ORDER

(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):

In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated

19.11.2012 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Uttarkashi in consumer complaint No. 79 of 2008, whereby the appellant was ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- (costs of Khachchar/Mule) alongwith simple interest from the date of filing the complaint on the ground that the Bank did not make any default in service and it was not the insurer of Khachchar (Mule).

2. Briefly stated, the claimant after taking a loan from the Bank- respondent No. 2 purchased a Mule / livestock of the value of Rs. 25,000/-;

the bank at that time of granting a loan, imposed a condition in writing that the livestock would be insured with the insurance company at his costs nominated by the bank, failing which the bank might also get it insured at the cost of the complainant. It is also an admitted fact that the bank deducted an amount of Rs. 3,095/- at the start of loan, i.e. 06.12.2005 from the loan account of the complainant – claimant. There is a dispute between the bank and insurance company about the payment of insurance claim. The bank has contended that a draft of insurance premium was sent to the insurance company, whereas the insurance company has denied its payment and receipt, consequently no policy was ever issued.

3. On the death of livestock, the complainant – claimant filed a claim which was allowed by the District Consumer Forum vide order dated 19.11.2012 against which the appellant – Bank has approached this Commission.

4. Respondent No. 1 – complainant has opposed the appeal on the ground that he was consumer of the Bank as per conditions of loan, bank deducted the premium amount of Rs. 3,095/- to be paid to insurance company, but did not remit the premium amount to the insurance company, consequently insurance company did not issue any policy. It is a clear case of default/deficiency of service on the part of the bank on account of which complainant – claimant has suffered the loss as claimed. The insurance company – respondent No. 2 denied the payment of premium amount.

5. We have heard the both sides and perused the record and judgment of the District Consumer Forum as well.

6. It is an admitted fact that the Mule was purchased with the sanctioned amount of loan of the Bank and the bank after deducting the insurance premium from his account has undertaken the liability to get it fully secured and insured, but default was made by the Bank for not remitting the premium amount to insurance company for which the policy cover note was not issued. There was no dispute about the death of Mule and the loss caused to the claimant on account of the same. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the Bank is not duty bound to take the policy unless the owner of the Mule authorizes the Bank in writing &

referred to the some cases as under-

(1) Revision Petition No. 2060/2012: Canara Bank vs. Deep Chand & others; decided on 31.05.2013.

(2) Revision Petition No. 604/2010: Vijaya Bank vs.

Chikkappaiah; decided on 24.04.2015.

and praying to allow the appeal.

7. We do not agree with the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Bank was only resp