STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
COMPLAINT NO. 119 OF 2017
- M/s. Food Mantra
Through its Proprietor Sunil Goyal
S/o Late Kedar Nath Goyal
R/o 68, Bhadri House, Kachehri Road
Police Station Kotwali Nagar
District Pratapgarh
- Sunil Goyal
S/o Late Kedar Nath Goyal
R/o 68, Bhadri House, Kachehri Road
Police Station Kotwali Nagar
District Pratapgarh
- Parwati Goyal
W/o Late Kedar Nath Goyal
S/o Late Kedar Nath Goyal
R/o 68, Bhadri House, Kachehri Road
Police Station Kotwali Nagar
District Pratapgarh
...Complainants
Vs.
- Assistant General Manager/
Authorized Officer
Bank of Maharashtra
Zonal Office, Lucknow, Plot No.12
Sector-9, Vikas Nagar, Lucknow
- Branch Manager
Bank of Maharashtra
Allahabad Faizabad Road
Branch Pratapgarh, U.P.
- United India Insurance Company Limited
47A, Civil Lines Katra Road,
Pratapgarh
...Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHTER HUSAIN KHAN, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MRS. BAL KUMARI, MEMBER
For the Complainant : Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party :
Dated : 24-03-2017
JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE A. H. KHAN, PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under Section-17 of the Consumer
:2:
Protection Act 1986 before State Commission by complainants M/s. Food Mantra, Sunil Goyal and Smt. Parwati Goyal against opposite parties Assistant General Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Lucknow, Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Pratapgarh and United India Insurance Company Limited, Pratapgarh.
Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, learned Counsel for the complainants appeared.
Heard learned Counsel for the complainants and perused complaint.
The complainants have made following prayers in complaint.
- It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may kindly be pleased to allow the present complaint.
- It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Commission may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite party no.1 and 2 i.e. respondent bank to recover Rs.25,00,000/- + interest @ 12.95% + other expenses from the opposite party no.3 i.e United India Insurance Company Limited as compensation/Insurance claimed by the complainant/claimant within the time framed.
In complaint it has been stated by complainants that they have taken facilities of term loan as well as cash credit limit from opposite parties no. 1 and 2 and have mortgaged securities. It has been further stated in the complaint by complainants that on 28-02-2014 financing bank opposite parties no. 1 and 2 being insurance agent of United India Insurance Company Limited got insured the assets of complainant M/s. Food Mantra for Rs.25,00,000/- and during validity period of insurance policy a fire incident took place on 19-06-2015 in hotel Goel Residency causing damages to the assets of complainant M/s. Food Mantra. Thereafter complainant no.2 sent letter to opposite party no.2 Manager, Bank of Maharashtra for giving information to Insurance Company regarding incident of fire which has taken place on 19-06-2015 and requested to proceed further in the matter but the opposite parties no.1 and 2 instead of making claim from Insurance Company proceeded against
:3:
complainants under Section 13(3A) of SARFAESI Act 2002 on 17-05-2016 and issued notices to complainants accordingly.
After having gone through averments made in complaint we are of the view that the complaint is false and vexatious and has been filed to avoid proceeding under SARFAESI Act. The complainants are competent to present claim of insurance before Insurance Company opposite party no.3 but they have not moved claim before Insurance Company.
In view of above we are of the view that the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious. As such complaint is dismissed.
Let copy of this order be made available to the complainant as per rules.
( JUSTICE A H KHAN )
PRESIDENT
( SMT. BAL KUMARI )
MEMBER
Pnt.
