View 24749 Cases Against Bank Of India
View 24749 Cases Against Bank Of India
Gopal Chandra Dash filed a consumer case on 10 May 2016 against 1. Branch Manager, Bank of India in the Kendujhar Consumer Court. The case no is CC/34/2015 and the judgment uploaded on 18 May 2016.
IN THE COURT OF THE PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KENDUJHAR
CONSUMER COMPLAINT CASE NO. 34 OF 2015
Gopal Chandra Dash, aged about 59 years,
S/o- Late Narana Prasad Dash,
At/P.O- Suakati, P.S- Sadar,
Dist- Keonjhar, Pin-758018, Odisha ……………………….Complainant
Vrs.
1. Branch Manager, Bank of India,
Suakati Branch, At/P.O- Suakati,
P.S- Sadar, Dist- Keonjhar, Pin-758018, Odisha
2. Zonal Manager, Bank of India,
At- Labanya Squire, P.O- Keonjhargarh,
P.S- Town, Dist- Keonjhar, Pin-758001, Odisha …………………………Op. Parties
PRESENT: - Shri A.K. Purohit, President
Sri S.C. Sahoo, Member
Advocate for the Complainant- Sri Rajesh Ranjan Rana & Parthendu Sahoo
Advocate for the OPs- Sri Ashok Ku. Dash & Debashis Rana
________________________________________________________________________________
Date of Hearing - 05.04.2016 Date of Order- 10.05.2016
Sri S.C. Sahoo, Member: The brief facts of the case are that the complainant is the owner of Indica Vista Car bearing Regd. No. OR-02-BP-6819 being financed by the OP1 for personal use of the complainant. The OP1 financed the alleged vehicle of the complainant on 23.5.2011 after execution of loan agreement with the OPs. The financer i.e. the Bank has to insure the financed assets i.e. the alleged vehicle and accordingly the OPs have insured the vehicle for the year 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 as per terms & conditions of loan agreement with National Insurance Company Ltd. But on dated 25.12.2014 the alleged Indica Car met an accident at Kanjipani Ghat under the district of Keonjhar for which the alleged Car damaged heavily and to this accident the matter was reported at Kanjipani Police Station vide Police Case No.39, dt.26.12.14 and after concluding necessary enquiry and verification on spot the Police registered the aforesaid case and on the same day the matter was also reported to National Insurance Co. Ltd. but the National Insurance Company orally intimated to the complainant that the alleged vehicle had not been insured with the OP during the time of accident/ occurrence. The complainant being finding no alternative way, took the alleged accidental vehicle to M/s. Ganapati Automobiles located at College Road Keonjhargarh, Keonjhar for repair with the help of a Towing vehicle and after a long gap of six month the vehicle was repaired at a cost of Rs.2.50 (Lakh) which amount was borrowed by the complainant from his friends and relatives. The complainant requested the OP1 to supply the Insurance Certificate for the year 2013-2014 but no heed was paid to furnish the Insurance Certificate for the year 2013-2014 and for the deliberate negligence and callousness of the OPs the complainant incurred financial loss and mental agony sustained for which the OPs involved in unfair trade practice as crystal clear and deficient in rendering service to the complainant by not providing Insurance Certificate and hence this case,
After service of notice the OPs have appeared through their engaged counsel and filed written version stating that the case is not maintainable and there is no cause of action to file this proceeding and also barred by law of limitation. Further the OPs does not admit the averments in the complaint petition except para/ column No.2 and also stated that before expiry of Policy period of Insurance the complainant has to deposit the insurance premium amount in Bank for the next consecutive year i.e. 2013-2014 policy period and to sign an Insurance Proposal Form by the complainant to insist the Competent Insurance Authority so as to get renew of the Insurance Certificate for which the signature of the insured over the proposal form is a must and inevitable for physical verification of the vehicle by the proposed Insurance Company and the OPs further stated that the accident was beyond the knowledge of the OPs as to whether the alleged vehicle returning from Jagamohanpur towards Suakati and met accident at Kanjipani Ghat for which the alleged vehicle damaged and the matter was reported to Kanjipani Police Station and the P.S registered the same as P.S. Case No. 39, dt.26.12.14 and the complainant has not mentioned the policy period 2011-2012 & 2012-2013 from which date the alleged policy period was valid as well as effective and how many days elapsed from the insurance period till the date of accident for which without holding a valid Insurance Certificate with the vehicle plying on road is not permissible in the eye of law and the alleged accident occurred on 25.12.2014 and the present C.C 34/15 filed on 22.6.15 after six months of ahead of closing of loan/ borrowal account on dt.30.5.15 which seems the complainant has filed this case with malafide intention to get the undue claim as prayed and hence the same be rejected/ dismissed.
Heard, the learned counsels for the contesting parties and perused the materials available in record. It is not disputed by both the contesting parties regarding the alleged accident on 25.12.2014 and financed by OP1 of the alleged vehicle. But disputed by the OPs that the vehicle has no valid insurance at the time of alleged accident/ occurrence since the Insurance Certificate for the year 2013-2014 was valid from 27.5.2013 to 26.5.2014 i.e. 7 months much before the alleged occurrence.
In this contest the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that general lien over the financed assets was with the OPs i.e. the financer Bank of India, Suakati Branch and it is the prime and utmost duty of the OP i.e. the bank had to intimate to the complainant to renew insurance soon after lapse of Policy period and in case of failure by the complainant the OP/ Bank has right as per agreement entered with the complainant to debit the premium amount in the account of the complainant for such renewal of insurance period which is a complete negligence by the OPs and liable for such financial loss incurred by the alleged accident of the vehicle of the complainant.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs submitted that as per terms and conditions of the loan agreement executed by the contesting parties in Cl. No. VIII (a) hypothecated vehicle to the Bank/ OP1 should be insured comprehensively at the cost of complaint/ the premium amount to be deposited in Bank account before the date failing which the insurance premium shall be debited to the loan account of the complainant. However insurance of goods is not binding up on the Bank and it is complainant’s responsibility.
On perusal of 2013-2014 Insurance Certificate the vehicle was insured with Insurance Company from 28.5.13 to 27.5.14. But the alleged accident occurred on 25.12.14, after lapse of 7 months of policy period. Where the Bank continuously got insurance done but failed to get it done in the prevalent year 2014-2015, hence the alleged hypothecated vehicle was not insured at the time of occurrence/ accident was totally a negligent act of the OPs to its hypothecated assets since the loan was not cleared and the Bank has utmost duty to protect its hypothecated assets alone rather than the loanee and as such the Bank/ OPs are liable to pay the claim amount of repair to the complainant as revealed in the A/C statement furnished by the Bank where in it discloses the Bank/ OPs have debited the amount of Insurance Premium to the loan account of the complainant.
With these pleadings, arguments and materials available in record it is believed that the Bank has to restore its hypothecated assets intact by debiting the premium amount of insurance to the loan account of the complainant as revealed in the A/C statement of the Bank is the act of negligence in rendering service to the complainant would be saddle with liability.
HENCE ORDER
The OPs are directed to pay the complainant Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakh fifty thousand) towards repairing charges of the alleged vehicle incurred due to accident along with Rs.6000/- towards compensation for harassment and mental agony and towards cost of litigation within 30 days of receipt of this order failing which the entire amount Rs.2,56,000/- will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till realization.
Accordingly the Case is disposed of.
I agree
(Sri S.C. Sahoo) (Sri A.K. Purohit)
Member President
D.C.D.R.F Keonjhar D.C.D.R.F Keonjhar
Dictated & Corrected by me
(Sri S.C. Sahoo)
Member, D.C.D.R.F Keonjhar
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.