RAJESH ZAMASHANKAR JOSHI Vs. BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR
Rajesh Zamashankar Joshi
BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner Rajesh Zamashankar Joshi challenging the order dated 07.8.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, (in short 'the State Commission') in First Appeal no. A/10/6.
(2.) Facts of the case in brief are as under: Original complainant/petitioner Rajesh Joshi is an account holder of respondent bank and the respondent had allowed cash credit facility of Rs.5 lac to the complainant/petitioner in the year 2003 and for that, the stock in business was hypothecated. The stock was insured with National Insurance Company for the period 6/11/2006 to 5/11/2007 and necessary premium was paid by the respondent bank by debiting it from the account of the complainant/petitioner. Said policy was lapsed on 6/11/2007. On 8/1/2007, the respondent bank had debited premium amount of Rs.3056/- from the account of the complainant/petitioner and sent it to the Insurance Company through the DTDC courier to whom, the Insurance Company has appointed as its collection agent for collecting cheques of premium from the customers. On 22/11/2007, at around 11.00 a.m. a fire broke out and the stock of the showroom was completely destroyed. The complainant immediately informed the Bank regarding the fire. Accordingly the Manager of the Bank asked the Insurance Company to send the surveyor to assess the loss. Accordingly, the surveyor visited the spot and ascertained the loss. The complainant/petitioner then asked the Insurance Company to supply Insurance policy for making claim. However, the Insurance Company informed the complainant that the insurance premium sent to it was received on 23/11/2007 and as such they could not issue the policy and in the meantime, the entire stock was lost in the fire. In this regard, the complainant made correspondence with the respondent bank, however, since there was no satisfactory reply, the complainant/petitioner filed consumer complainant before the District Forum, Nagpur. On hearing both the sides, the District Forum partly allowed complaint directing the opponent/respondent to pay Rs.8 lac to the original complainant/petitioner towards compensation and Rs.10000/- for physical and mental harassment and further Rs.5000/- as cost of proceeding. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the respondent/opposite party preferred an appeal before the State Commission being First Appeal no. A/10/6. The State Commission vide its order dated 07.08.2012 allowed the appeal and set aside order of the District Forum and complaint was also dismissed.
(3.) Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that it was the responsibility of the bank to have sent the amount of premium to the Insurance Company in time. The bank deducted the premium from the account of the complainant on 08.11.2007 whereas the earlier policy expired on 5.11.2007. The assertion of the Insurance Company is that they received the premium amount on 23.11.2007. However, by that time, the incident of fire had occurred on 22.11.2007, therefore, no policy was issued. The learned counsel stated that the policy could not be issued as respondent bank deducted premium after three days of the expiry of the earlier policy and the same was sent with delay to the Insurance Company and that is why the Insurance Company received it only on 23.11.2007. Thus, the loss occurred to the complainant is due to the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/bank and therefore, the District Forum had rightly awarded a compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- to the complainant though the claim was for about Rs.14,00,000/-.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.