State Bank Of India Jai Singhpur, District -Kangra H.P. vs ANIL KUMAR

THIS revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against order dated 27-08-2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Himachal Pradesh (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 224/2011 - State Bank of India Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr., by which while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum allowing complaint against petitioner was upheld.

BRIEF facts of the case are that Complainant/Respondent No. 1 was carrying on business under the name of Bandana Cloth House at Jai Singhpur, District Kangra and had taken C.C. Limit of Rs. 3 lakh from opposite party No. 2/Petitioner. Stock lying in the shop was insured by Opposite Party No. 2 on 25-08-2007 from Opposite Party No. 1 /Respondent No. 2. Later on, complainant shifted business from Jai Singhpur to Sandhole, District Mandi and Opposite Party No. 2 was informed. Opposite Party No. 2 told complainant that insurance company had already been intimated about shifting of business. On 30.05.2008 shop of complainant was destroyed by fire. Opposite party deputed surveyor but matter was not settled. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite party complainant filed complaint before District Forum. Opposite Party No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that neither complainant nor Opposite Party No. 2 informed insurance company about shifting of business which amounted to violation of terms and conditions of policy. It was further submitted that surveyor appointed by insurance company assessed loss of Rs.1,63,000/ - but on account of violation of terms and conditions of policy no claim was payable and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite Party No. 2 resisted complaint and admitted insurance policy but submitted that complainant filed affidavit dated 09 -04 -2008 for giving permission to change the place of business but there was no question of permission as business had already been shifted, opposite party no. 2 asked complainant to intimate opposite party no. 1 about change of place of business for necessary endorsement in the policy and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint against opposite party no. 2 and directed him to pay Rs.1,63,000/- and further allowed compensation of Rs.5,000/ - and Rs.3,000/- as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by opposite party no. 2 was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which this revision petition has been filed.

RESPONDENT No. 1 did not appear even after service of notice so he was proceeded ex -parte. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Respondent No. 2 and perused record.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that as there was no address in affidavit dated 09 -04 -2008 and as complainant failed to intimate to the insurance company about change of address inspite of direction by the petitioner, learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint against petitioner and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal, hence revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, hence revision petition be dismissed.

PERUSAL of record reveals that opposite party no. 2 granted C.C. limit to the complainant and his stock was insured by opposite party no. 2 with opposite party no. 1. As per terms and conditions of agreement of loan -cum -hypothecation insurance was to be taken by the complainant but bank had right to take insurance and claim amount from the complainant. Thus, it becomes clear that bank was under no obligation to get the stocks insured but it was primary duty of the complainant to get stocks insured but opposite party no. 2 got it insured.

ADMITTEDLY complainant shifted his business from the place for which insurance policy was taken. Perusal of affidavit dated 09 -04 -2008 reveals that on account of partition complainant shifted his business from Jai Singhpur to Sandhol. Perusal of letter dated 11-04-2008 written by petitioner to the complainant further reveals that bank directed complainant to get necessary endorsement of transfer of place of business in the insurance policy. It was further mentioned in the letter that complainant will be responsible for all the risks in case he fails to get the aforesaid endorsement in insurance policy.

PERUSAL of aforesaid letter dated 11 -04 -2008 makes it crystal clear that complainant was under obligation to intimate insurance company about change of place of business and to get necessary endorsement on the policy but he failed to intimate to the insurance company and in such circumstances petitioner cannot be held guilty of any deficiency and learned District Forum committed error in allowing complaint against the petitioner and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing the appeal and impugned order is liable to be set aside.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 27-08-2012 passed by learned State Commission in Appeal No. 224/2011 - State Bank of India Vs. Anil Kumar & Anr. and order of District Forum dated 01-07-2011 passed in Complaint case no. 256/2010 - Anil Kumar Vs. Divisional Manager, New India AssuranceCo. & Anr. is set aside and complaint stands dismissed against petitioner with no order as to costs.