PETER LOBO vs Dena Bank

THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 24.7.2001 by the Consumer Forum, North in Complaint No. 131/2000, dismissing the complaint.

AGGRIEVED by the order of the District Forum, North Goa the complainant has come up on appeal. Heard the Counsels for the appellant-complainant and the opposite parties/respondents, the Bank.

For convenience sake the appellant is referred to as complainant and the respondents as opposite parties hereinafter.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant took agriculture loan from the Bank-the opposite parties for purchase of power tiller amounting to Rs. 65,550/- on 23.1.1998. The grievance of the complainant is that the Branch Manager of the Bank insured the power tiller on 29.7.2000 without the knowledge of the complainant or intimation. Further it is the grievance that the insurance was done subsequently after two years and that power tiller was not required to be insured as the same does not run on road. Under these circumstances the question of insurance does not arise. The prayer made in the complaint is for reimbursement of damages suffered by the complainant due to the overhearing attitude of insuring the power tiller and damages of Rs. 50,000/- and other costs.

THE learned Counsel for the complainant appellant has strenuously urged that there is deficiency in service from the opposite parties Bank as the Branch Manager debited the amount which was credited in the Dena Bank account of the complainant without the knowledge or intimation or consent and also the Manager should not have insured the power tiller. The Counsel for the opposite parties took us to the contract between the complainant and the opposite parties in Clause No. 10(a) it is mentioned that "without notice to the Borrower(s) and at the Borrower''s risk and expenses the Branch Manager can insure" and further Clause (c) mentions "apply towards the outstanding loans any money in its hand belonging to the Borrower(s) and to recover the balance, if any, of the loans notwithstanding that all or any of the security may not have been realized". During the course of the order the District Forum North has discussed this aspect and has come to the conclusion that in the circumstances of the case the opposite parties in terms of the agreement exercised Banker''s lien and deducted and debited insurance premium which is otherwise due and payable by the complainant for insuring the subject of hypothecation during the currency of loan period. The District Forum North has opined the dispute between the parties is purely of civil nature and for this justice is to be done before a Civil Court.

IN the circumstances of the case as seen from the terms of the contract the Manager had the discretion to insure the power tiller and had done so and also acted according to the terms of contract and also adjusted the amount which was with the Bank.

UNDER these circumstances we are not prepared to accept the strenuous contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that there has been deficiency in service by the Bank opposite party to the complainant and the finding given by the District Forum in our considered view does not require to be revised or intefered with. In our opinion there is no substance in the appeal in view of the facts mentioned in the complaint to urge the reliefs by the complaint. Dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum in our opinion should be affirmed in the view that has been taken as above and the apeal has to fail and the same stands rejected and refused.

In the circumstances, parties have to bear their own costs of the appeal.

AS the complainant has some grievance if he so chooses the same can be urged before the Civil Court. Appeal dismissed.