STATE BANK OF INDORE vs EMARAT SINGH

PETITIONER was the opposite party before the District Forum, where the complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the petitioner.

BRIEF facts of the case are that the complainant along with Hamir Singh, Takht Singh and Smt. Kasturi Bai, had purchased a tractor for which loan was obtained from the petitioner Bank. When there was delay in payment of instalments by the respondent, the vehicle was seized and certain demands were raised by the petitioner against the respondent/complainant, on account of outstanding/unpaid loan amount. When no settlement was reached between the parties about the outstanding amount, a complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties, allowed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, which was also dismissed, hence this revision petition before us. Learned Counsel for the petitioner remained absent despite knowledge of today''s date. We heard the learned Counsel for the respondent and go on to pass on orders based on the material on record. Basic facts are not in dispute, hence not being gone into. The only point agitated by the respondent relates to disallowing the amount of Rs. 11,459/- which the petitioner claims as "Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation" (DICGC) charges. While the contention of the petitioner is that under the Hypothecation agreement, these charges could be levied and recovered from the respondent/complainant, the case of the complainant is that they are not a party to any such insurance which the petitioner might have obtained to secure his loan. We have seen the written version filed by the petitioner, which reads as under: "Para 3 Sa is denied because it is incorrect. The non-applicant had been insured as per the agreement between the applicant and the non-applicant and the amount has been shown in the account of the applicant. The non-applicant has a right to recover the amount as his right over the principal amount and the interest."

This is in response to the para 3(c) of the complaint which reads as under: "That on different dates between 6.2.1990 and 27.7.1997 an amount of Rs. 9,399.90 has been debited to applicant''s account and assumed to be principal. This amount was for TDICGC, i.e., Bank had got further insurance to safeguarding loan amount. There was no such agreement with regard to this amount and hence respondent Bank has gone against law by debiting an amount of Rs. 9,399.90 in the account of applicant which he has the right to recover."

WE have very carefully gone through the material brought on record and we do not see any specific agreement between the parties with the help of which it could be said that there was agreement between the parties to take insurance cover from DICGC. While going through the Hypothecation agreement, we find there is reference in para 3 that the "borrower shall pay .... incidental to protection of its right hereunder......" Yet, we are unable to satisfy ourselves firstly that there was anything made clear to the respondent/complainant that the petitioner shall be insuring the loan for which he will have to pay the premium and secondly if the loan was secured through DICGC then where was the question of seizing the vehicle and recovering the amount from them, if the loan was not forthcoming? WE see nothing on record about the petitioner having ever approached the Insurance Corporation for indemnification of the non-recovered amount from the complainant. As rightly held by consumer Forums and, in our view, rightly that there was no specific arrangement/agreement between the parties for fastening the liabilities of premium of the complainant for obtaining a security of its liability by the petitioner. WE have very carefully gone through the additional material brought on record and we see that it does not at all help the petitioner to any extent with regard to passing on the liability of securing its loan and passing on the premium to the complainant of which he was never made aware except through recovering this amount for the first time in 1991 and later on 1993, while admittedly the deed of mortgage and hypothecation is dated 27.7.1986. There is no material brought on record as to when the loan was secured? What we have only instructions on the subject, nothing else. In view of above, we see no merit in the revision petition filed by the petitioner before us calling for our interference in the orders passed by both the lower Forums, hence dismissed. No order as to costs. R.P. dismissed.