M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO.846 OF 2014 (Arising out of order dated 28.03.2014 passed in Case.No.65/2011 by District Commission, Neemuch)

UNION BANK OF INDIA, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, NAGAR PALIKA ROAD BRANCH, NEEMUCH. … APPELLANT.

Versus GHEESALAL, R/O BORKHEDI TALAB, TEHSIL JAVAD, DISTT. NEEMUCH. .… RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT.SUNITA YADAV, PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri H.R.Mutreja, learned counsel for the appellant.

None for the respondent.

O R D E R (Passed on .07.2025)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :

This is an appeal by the opposite party / appellant –

Union Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bank’) directed against the order dated 28.03.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Neemuch (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no.65/2011, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant / respondent (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’).

2. Facts of the case are that the complainant had purchased a Sonalika Tractor on 10.12.2004 by availing financial assistance from the Bank. The subject tractor was insured and as per the complainant he had deposited insurance premium regularly. The premium amount was debited from the loan account of the complainant. It is alleged that the Bank did not deduct premium amount after 09.12.2008 and no information regarding the same was sent to the complainant either. The tractor met with an accident on 07.05.2011 and since it was not insured the complainant was not paid the claim amount. He therefore, alleged deficiency in service against the Bank.

3. The Bank resisted the complaint on the ground that the Bank was not under obligation to insure the tractor. The complainant had to himself get his vehicle duly insured as per the loaning documents and also under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. The complainant failed to get the vehicle insured after 09.12.2008 and was running the same till 07.05.2011, when the accident took place. No amount of premium was debited from the loan account of the complainant and the complainant was fully aware that the said tractor was not insured, but he never objected or requested the Bank to renew the insurance.

4. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the Bank to pay compensation of Rs.45,000/- to the complainant with interest @ 6% p.a. from 30.06.2011 till payment.

In addition costs of Rs.2,000/- is also awarded.

5. Heard. Perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the Bank argued that it was categorically submitted by the Bank before the District Commission that as per Hypothecation cum loan agreement, it shall be lawful but not obligatory upon the Bank to insure and to pay insurance premium by debit to the borrower’s account in respect of the property that are of insurable nature. Therefore, it was not the duty of the Bank to get the vehicle insured but it was the complainant’s responsibility and therefore, he is liable to bear consequences when the subject vehicle was not insured. The District Commission has therefore, committed error while passing the impugned order ignoring the documents produced on record and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside. To support his arguments he placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Central Bank of India Vs. Jagbir Singh, 2015 STPL (Web) 324 SC 1, judgment of Honble National Commission in case of Lalit Narain Chouhan vs. Ballia Etwash Gramin Bank & Ors., II (2015) CPJ 652 (NC) and in Revison Petition No.4248/2012, State Bank of India Vs. R.Vishwanatha Pai & Anr., decided on 21.11.2024 and judgment of this Commission in First Appeal no.902/2017, Chhaganlal Vs.

Branch Manager, Bank of India, decided on 22.04.2024

7. There is a mortgage deed annexed at page 90 in the record, the relevant clause of which is