BALKISHAN vs PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

THE complainant/petitioner took a loan of Rs. 42 lakhs from Punjab National Bank, Loharu. According to him, he had obtained an insurance policy to the extent of Rs. 48 lakhs by paying a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/ - as insurance to the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through Mr. Baldev Rai Sachdeva, Manager of Punjab National Bank, Dabra Chowk, Hissar, which included Rs. 8,000/ - for the purpose of the premium of the insurance policy. The complainant, however, does not claim to have received any insurance policy. This is also the case of the complainant that on 05.05.2008, there was heavy rain, wind and storm in the area which damaged his shed/building and also resulted in death of 15,000 chicks, thereby causing him loss to the extent of Rs. 18 lakhs. The complainant applied to the Insurance Company for reimbursement of the loss suffered by him and the application submitted by him to the Bank was forwarded by them to the Insurance Company. However, no compensation was paid to the complainant either by the Insurance Company or by the Bank. Being aggrieved, he approached the concerned District Forum seeking compensation to the extent of Rs. 18 lakhs, alongwith Rs. 1 lakh towards compensation for the mental agony, harassment etc.

THE Insurance Company pleaded before the District Forum that it had not issued any insurance policy to the complainant prior to the date of the alleged loss and therefore was not liable to compensate him. The Bank, however, denied the allegation of the complainant that its Manager had taken a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/ - from the complainant including a sum of Rs. 8,000/ - towards premium for the insurance policy.

VIDE order dated 31.01.2014, the District Forum directed the Bank to pay a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs to the complainant alongiwth interest @ 12% per annum. A sum of Rs. 2,200/ - was also awarded to him as litigation charges. Being aggrieved from the order of the District Forum, the Bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 20.11.2014, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the Bank and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainant is before us by way of this revision petition.

THE agreement of the complainant with the Bank, to the extent it is relevant for our purpose, reads as under: - "The Borrowers agree to keep fully insured for the full market value of the property or assets to be mortgaged in the name of the borrowers and the bank with bank clause against risk of damage, loss, destruction by fire and such other risk as may be prescribed by the bank and keep up such insurances until the amount due under the term loan is paid in full to the bank. In case the borrowers fail at any time to insure and pay the necessary premium, the bank may without being bound to do so, get the said property/assets insured and debit the amount of premium to the borrower''s account. The premium so paid will carry interest at the same rate as of the amount advanced and become a part of the principal amount." It would thus be seen that it was the obligation of the petitioner and not of the Bank to keep the stock insured. Though without prejudice to the aforesaid obligation of the complainant, the Bank also could get the stock insured in case he failed to get the same insured and debit the premium to the account of the complainant, but the primary responsibility was of the complainant, to keep the aforesaid stock duly insured as per the terms of his agreement with the Bank. This is not a case, where the bank had in the past obtained insurance policy, on behalf of the borrower. Here no policy was obtained at all, at any point of time.

THE complainant claimed that he paid a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/ - to the Branch Manager, which included a sum of Rs. 8,000/ - towards premium for the insurance policy. The complaint does not explain what for the balance amount of Rs. 2,17,000/ - was allegedly paid to the Branch Manager and that too in cash. The learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner states that the aforesaid payment was made towards payment of the instalments of the loan taken from the Bank. However, the aforesaid contention is not in consonance with the allegation made in para 2 of the complaint, which contains no such averments. More importantly, even the date of alleged cash payment of Rs. 2,25,000/ - has not been indicated in the complaint.

THOUGH the complainant claims to have paid a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/ - to the Branch Manager in cash, there is no explanation from him as to why he did not issue a cheque instead of making the aforesaid payment in cash. The complainant has not produced any receipt of the alleged payment of Rs. 2,25,000/ - and there is no explanation for not taking a receipt. In these circumstances, when (1) no date of the alleged cash payment has been given, (2) there is no explanation for making cash payment instead of making the payment by cheque to the Bank and (3) there is no document evidencing the alleged cash payment of Rs. 2,25,000/ -, we cannot accept the aforesaid contention.

MORE importantly, there is no letter written by the complainant to the Bank at any time before the alleged loss, stating therein that he had paid a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/ - to the Branch Manager, including Rs. 8,000/ - towards premium for the insurance policy and therefore, the Bank should obtain the insurance policy in respect of the stock kept in its shed. This is yet another indication that the entire plea taken in this regard is mere concoction, without having any factual basis. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that no such payment was ever made by the complainant/petitioner to the Bank.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed alongwith the accompanying application.