ASHOK KUMAR KALRA vs ALLAHABAD BANK

MR. Justice K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member-This revision is directed against the order dated 21.2.2006 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana, Chandigarh allowing appeal against the order dated 18.9.2003 of a District Forum and dismissing the complaint. The District Forum had accepted the complaint with direction to the respondent/opposite party bank to pay amount of Rs. 69,000 with interest @ 10% p.a. to the petitioner/complainant.

IN nutshell, the facts giving rise to this revision are these. Petitioner took loan of Rs. 1,50,000 for purchasing a tractor from the respondent in the year 1995. To secure loan amount, land measuring 74 kanals was mortgaged with the bank by the petitioner. Hypothecation agreement dated 7.1.1996 was also executed by the petitioner in favour of respondent bank. It was alleged that on 5.9.1997 the tractor bearing registration No. O7B-4574 met with an accident wherein one Abudal Gani died. IN a petition filed by the deceased''s father before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal the petitioner had to pay Rs. 69,000 by way of compensation to the father of deceased. It was stated that under hypothecation agreement the insurance premium of tractor was to be paid by the respondent and debited into the account of petitioner. However, bank did not pay the premium to INsurance Company. Complaint seeking payment of Rs. 69,000 paid to the deceased''s father and Rs. 50,000 by way of damages on account of mental agony was filed which was contested by the respondent. Plea taken by the respondent was that under para IX of hypothecation agreement dated 7.1.1996 it was the duty of petitioner and not the respondent to get the tractor insured and pay premium. Submission advanced by the learned Counsel of petitioner is that on the asking of petitioner the respondent bank had earlier paid premium to the Insurance Company and the State Commission acted erroneously in setting aside the order of District Forum. Reliance was placed on the decision in State Bank of India v. Tarlok Singh & Ors., AIR 1992 Delhi 76. Para IX of said hypothecation agreement which is material, is reproduced below: "IX. That the borrower(s) shall at all times keep such items of security as are of insurable nature, insured against loss or damage by fire and other risks as may be required by the bank and shall deliver to the bank all such policies. It shall be also lawful for but not obligatory upon the Bank to insure and keep insured by debit to the borrower(s) account(s) the security as are of insurable nature. The proceeds of such insurance shall at the option of the Bank either be applied towards replacement of the security or towards the satisfaction of the bank''s dues hereunder."

Bare reading of the para would show that it was primarily the obligation of petitioner to have got the tractor insured and premium paid. The petitioner seems to have not led any evidence to show that any instruction was issued by him to the bank to obtain insurance of the tractor for the relevant period and debit the premium amount in his account. Taking note of said para IX and two decisions in Pradeep Kumar Jain v. Citi Bank and Anr., II (1999) CPJ 7 (SC)=VI (1999) SLT 550=(1999) 6 SCC 361 and D. Yakoob v. Nilgiris District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., III (2003) CPJ 96, the State Commission had rightly set aside the District Forum''s order. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in aforesaid order of the State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act. Decision in Tarlok Singh''s case (supra) has no applicability to the facts of present case.

ACCORDINGLY, revision petition is dismissed being without any merit. Revision Petition dismissed.