Date of Filing – 17.07.2013

Date of Hearing – 09.02.2017

PER HON’BLE MR. SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER

            The assail in this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is to the Judgement dated 25.04.2013 made by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Darjeeling (for short, Ld. District Forum) in Consumer Complaint No.46/2012.  By the impugned order, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint lodged by the Respondent no.1 Sri Binod Gurung under Section 12 of the Act with direction upon the Appellant to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost, to deposit Rs.2,000/- towards Consumer Welfare Fund.

          The Respondent no.1 herein being Complainant lodged the complaint stating that he has a business under the name and style of M/s. Gurung Electronic at H.D. Lama Road, Darjeeling.  Being an account holder of the Appellant Bank, he took financial assistance of Rs.2,50,000/- on 18.03.2011 from the said bank under the P.M.E.G.P. Scheme.  The Complainant alleged that OP no.1 was required mandatorily to obtain a comprehensive insurance of the business of the Complainant under the P.M.E.G.P. Scheme but OP no.1 did not take any step to that effect.  On 20.04.2012, a devastating fire took place for which the business premises of the Complainant was gutted down along with all the stocks, furniture’s etc.  After seven days of such incident, a Policy was granted by OP no.2 at the instance of OP no.1 in favour of him and he came to know on 27.04.2012 that from his account an amount of Rs.2,217/- had been deducted and the said amount had been debited as premium to the said insurance policy.  The Complainant alleged that had the OP no.1 Bank being careful and acted with due diligence, he would not have suffered irreparably. Hence, the Respondent no.1 approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for certain reliefs, viz – (a) an amount of Rs.6 lakhs with interest; (b) compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-; (c) litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.

          The Appellant being OP no.1 by filing a written version has stated that it is not mandatory to obtain a comprehensive insurance of the business of the Complainant under the P.M.E.G.P. Scheme.

          The Respondent no.2 being OP no.2 had also appeared by filing a written version but no copy of written version has been appended with the Memorandum of Appeal. 

          After assessing the evidence led by the parties and on evaluation of the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the complaint with certain directions upon the OPs, as indicated above.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the OP no.1 Bank has come up in this Commission with the present appeal.

          We have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submission advanced by the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Respondent no.2.  The Appellant or Respondent no.1 was found absent when the record called on for hearing.  Under compulsion, we proceeded to hear the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent no.2.

          Upon hearing the Ld. Advocates for the Respondent no.2 and on having a look to the materials available on the record, it would reveal that the Respondent no.1 herein was an account holder of Appellant Bank bearing A/C No.3114433060.  It is not in dispute that the Appellant had sanctioned a loan of Rs.2,50,000/- under the P.M.E.G.P. Scheme on 18.03.2011 to the Respondent no.1.

          The Respondent no.1 has alleged that the Appellant Bank had a responsibility to make an insurance policy in respect of the property against which loan was sanctioned under P.M.E.G.P. Scheme.  On the other hand, it is stated in the written version that it is not mandatory to obtain a comprehensive insurance of the business of Respondent no.1. 

In any case, on 20.04.2012 a devastating fire had taken place at Darjeeling resulting thereby the shop of the Respondent no.1 was totally damaged.  It is evident that just one week after the incident, at the behest of the Appellant Bank, the Respondent no.2 insurance company issued an insurance policy covered the period from 28.04.2012 to 27.04.2013 and to that effect a sum of Rs.2,217/- had been deducted from the account of Respondent no.1 and the said amount had been debited as premium in the account of Respondent no.2.  What we find from the observation of the Ld. District Forum that the Respondent no.1 filed one sanctioned order of Appellant Bank in which insurance column indicates that stock should be insured against fire, riot and burglary as per agreed Bank’s clause.  As per said terms, the Appellant Bank did not act and ultimately, they acted on it when the incident of fire had already been taken place and mischief has already been completed.

Therefore, we do not find any reason to differ with the view of the Ld. District Forum that the OP no.1/Appellant was deficient in rendering services to the Respondent no.1.  The Ld. District Forum did not grant relief over the sum assured amount of Rs.6,00,000/- and only awarded an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost.   

The impugned order being based on proper reasoning, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same.

Consequently, the appeal is dismissed on merit.  There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.

The impugned Judgement/Final Order dated 25.04.2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum at Darjeeling in CC/46/2012 is hereby affirmed.

          The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Darjeeling for information.