UCO BANK THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER vs M/S. PARAS AGENCY & ANR.

This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 19.11.2015, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ''the State Commission'') in FA No. 1515/2012, " Branch Manager, UCO Bank vs. M/s Paras Agency and Anr. ", vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 12.10.2012, allowing the consumer complaint No. 35/2012, was upheld.

The complainant M/s Paras Agency filed the consumer complaint in question, against the petitioner UCO Bank and Reliance General Insurance Co., saying that they had obtained cash credit limit from the petitioner Bank vide account No. 08150500002331 and the goods kept in their shop were got insured with the Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. The premium for the insurance policy was being deducted by the Bank from year to year and deposited with the insurance company. The complainant alleged that no information about deduction of the premium was being given by the Bank to them. The insurance cover note was also not being given by the Bank to the complainant, even after demanding the same. On 29.11.2011 at 1:45 PM, there was fire at the premises of the complainant, resulting in damage to their stocks. An intimation about the incident was given to the OPs orally as well as in writing at 3:10 PM. The complainant also went in person to the Bank at 4:45 PM and gave them written intimation. It has been stated that the complainant suffered loss to the extent of 1,09,992.70ps. as a result of fire. After getting the intimation, the Bank seized the destroyed goods and shop of the complainant for 7 days and kept the keys with them only. The cash credit account of the complainant was also made non-operational, causing lot of inconvenience/loss to the complainant. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank, the complainant sent a legal notice to them on 11.01.2012, which was not replied to by the Bank. The consumer complaint in question, was then filed, seeking directions to the Bank to make the bank account operational and to pay a sum of 1,09,992.70ps. for the loss and in addition, to pay 10,000/- as compensation and 6,500/- as litigation expenses.

The complainant was resisted by the Bank by filing a written reply before the District Forum, in which they stated that the insurance premium was being withdrawn and got deposited with the insurance company on the instructions of the complainant only. The insurance note was being sent by the insurance company to the complainant and it was being deposited by them with the Bank. The complainant was, therefore, within the knowledge of all happenings. The complainant did not give any intimation about the fire incident to the Police deliberately. It was the duty of the complainant to contact the insurance company and have a surveyor appointed. The Bank had never seized the shop or stock of the complainant. An officer of the Bank had gone to the shop of the complainant after the incident and found that only one part of the shop was burnt. Even after the advice of that officer, the complainant did not lodge a report with the Police. Even after the incident, the complainant had withdrawn a sum of 3 lakh from his account. Further, on his instructions, the premium was deposited with the insurance company on 28.12.2011. The Bank had, therefore, no liability in the case. Moreover, it had been clearly mentioned in the proforma filled at the time of taking the cash credit limit that it was the responsibility of the complainant to have the stocks insured and hand over the policies to the Bank. Moreover, the claim submitted by the complainant was excessive and proper details had not been furnished. In their reply filed by the insurance company, it was stated that intimation about the fire incident was not given to the insurance company by the complainant. Further, the insurance cover had been obtained from 24.11.2010 and 23.11.2011 and then further from 28.12.2011 to 27.12.2012. On the date of the fire incident, i.e., on 29.11.2011, there was no insurance cover and hence, the insurance company was not liable to pay anything.

The District Forum after considering the averments of the parties, allowed the consumer complaint and directed the OP Bank to pay a sum of 78,992.70ps. alongwith interest @9% p.a. and 2,000/- as cost of litigation. The District Forum concluded that the Bank had been obtaining the insurance policy at their own level for the security of their loan and the Bank had failed to get the policy renewed in time. Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the Bank challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission and the said appeal having been dismissed by the State Commission, the Bank is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

It has been stated in the order of the State Commission that a sum of 2015/- was deducted towards premium on 11.11.2009 and a sum of 2100/- was deducted on 24.11.2010 by the Bank. The Bank had also deposited a sum of 2700/- as premium on 28.12.2011. The State Commission also concluded that the Bank used to deposit the premium at its own level and the name of the Bank had also been mentioned alongwith the name of the insured in the insurance policy, which indicated that the policy was taken by the Bank itself and also kept by them.

During arguments before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner Bank has drawn attention to the copy of the document regarding the cash credit limit from the Bank, saying that it was the primary duty of the borrower to get the goods insured after making payment of the insurance premium. The Bank was not concerned in any manner for obtaining the insurance policy. The learned counsel for the respondent insurance company stated that they had no liability in the matter, because the complainant firm had not been insured on the date of the fire incident. The complainant did not put in appearance despite service and hence, it was proceeded against exparte.

I have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before me.

A perusal of clause 6 of the Hypothecation Agreement executed between the Bank and the complainant shows that the Bank was under no legal obligation to insure securities hypothecated with it and it was the duty of the borrower to get the same insured against loss or damage by fire and other risks. However, the aforesaid clause also permitted the Bank to obtain the policy at any time on its discretion, to insure the securities for the full market value against loss or damage etc. at the expense of the borrowers with any insurance company. The complainant has taken the plea that insurance premium was being deducted by the Bank from their account on their own and no insurance cover note of any year had been given to the complainants, despite demand. In their reply, the Bank has stated that the insurance premium was being withdrawn from his account and deposited with the insurance company on the instructions of the complainant. The Bank has, however, stated that the insurance cover was being sent to the complainant by the insurance company. The concurrent findings of the consumer fora below bring out, however, that the insurance policies were being taken by the Bank on their own and the Bank was in possession of the said insurance policies. In the grounds of the revision petition, the Bank has not been able to prove anywhere that the insurance policies were being received by the complainant and not by them.

In the order dated 08.07.2014 passed by this Commission in FA No. 635/2013, " Punjab National Bank vs. Budhram Sharma & Anr. ", as well, it was held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Bank, when they failed to inform the borrower about the expiry of the insurance policy.

In the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, therefore, there is no such material or evidence based upon which, the concurrent findings of the consumer fora below could be set aside. The Hon''ble Supreme Court have taken the view in the case, " Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269 " that powers in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction should be exercised only if there is a patent error of jurisdiction or miscarriage of justice. In the present case, there is no concrete evidence to take a different view from that taken by both the consumer fora below. It is held, therefore, that this petition is without any force and the same is ordered to be dismissed and the orders passed by the consumer fora below are upheld. There shall be no order as to costs.