IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.A.T.Munnoli<br /> B.A., L.L.B (Spl.) - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> <br /> CC 362/09 DATED 03.11.2009<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant K.S. Krishnamurthy, No.28, “Sri Ganesh”, 14th cross, Adipampa Road, V.V. Mohalla, Mysore.<br /> <br /> (In person)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties Chief Manager, Canara Bank, No.6, “Ganga”, Temple Road, Jayalakshmipuram, Mysore-12.<br /> <br /> (By Sri. S. Umesh, Advocate)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 25.09.2009<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 12.10.2009<br /> Date of order : 03.11.2009<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 22 days<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. A.T.Munnoli,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeing a direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.17,422/-, the insurance premium including interest, cost of the proceedings and damages.<br /> <br /> 2. In the complaint it is alleged that the complainant raised the loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite party and purchased a car. The loan agreement dated 29.07.2006 was entered into between the parties. The complainant got the vehicle insured for the year 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 paying the premium of Rs.7,077/-, 4,398/- and 4,102/- respectively. On 20.07.2009 the complainant discharged the entire loan amount. On 24.07.2009 the complainant got the account extract from the opposite party. He was shocked to note that the Bank has debited a sum of Rs.4,486/- on 04.07.2007 and Rs.4,211/- on 28.06.2008 towards the insurance for the year 2007-08 and 2008-09. The opposite party debited the said amount without informing the complainant. It resulted in double payment of insurance premium. It is due to negligence on the part of the opposite party. Thereby deficiency in service of the part of the opposite party has occasioned. The complainant suffered financially and mentally. Coming to know of the said debit, the complainant called upon the opposite party to refund the amount, but untenable reply has been given. On these grounds, it is prayed to allow the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. The opposite party has filed version, contending that as per the agreement, the complainant has specifically agreed his responsibility to insure the hypothecated vehicle, but the complainant did not inform the fact of insurance to the opposite party and hence, the opposite party has taken care of insuring the hypothecated vehicle. It has paid the insurance premium for two years. After the complainant raised objections, the opposite party made attempt with the insurance company to get refund, but the company has refused to refund the premium for the first and second years. Other allegations made in the complaint are denied. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. To prove the facts alleged in the complaint, the complainant has filed his affidavit and later he has filed additional affidavit. For the opposite party no affidavit is filed. We have heard the arguments of the complainant. The opposite party and the advocate were absent. Hence, we perused the records.<br /> <br /> 5. Now, the points for our consideration are as under.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant has proved that any deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and that he is entitled to the amount claim?<br /> 2. What order?<br /> <br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Partly in affirmative <br /> Point no.2 : As per the order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- From the records, most of the facts are admitted and it is clear that the complainant had insured his vehicle paying the premium and at the same time, the opposite party-bank which had advanced loan has also insured the said vehicle.<br /> <br /> 8. Only the point of respective liabilities of the parties, needs to be considered. Copy of the loan agreement between the parties is on record. Clause 11 of the Agreement provides that the borrower shall adequately insure the hypothecated vehicle for the full market value and keep the policy current by duly and punctually pay the premium from time to time. Hence, from this clause of the agreement between the parties first and foremost duty and obligation is coasted on the complainant borrower to insure the hypothecated vehicle. Accordingly, in the case on hand the complainant has insured the vehicle by paying the requisite premium.<br /> <br /> 9. It is true, in the said clause, further there is mention that the bank is at liberty though not bound, to effect such insurance at the risk, responsibility and expenses of the borrower with any insurance company only to the extent of the value of security as estimated by the Bank and that in the event of insuring the security, Bank shall not be considered or deemed to be responsible or liable for non-admission or rejection of the claim wholly or in part, whether the claim is made by the Bank or by the borrower. However, it may be noted that the Bank is not bound and the borrower agrees hereby not to hold the bank liable, if the bank has not effected such insurance or fails to renew the insurance policy. <br /> <br /> 10. Reading the clause 11 of the agreement referred above, primary duty is on the borrower/complainant to insure the vehicle. Accordingly, in the case on hand the complainant has complied with the said agreement. There is option on the part of the opposite party bank to insure the vehicle or not. There is no compulsory obligation on the part of the bank to insure the vehicle. The Motor Vehicle Act and Rules make it compulsory to insure the vehicle. Hence, under the circumstance when there is an obligation on the part of the complainant to insure the vehicle and option on the part of the opposite party-bank, the opposite party bank before insuring the vehicle aught to have ascertained from the complainant whether the vehicle has been insured or not. It is definite and specific case of the complainant that the opposite party did not intimate regarding the debiting of the premium amount in the loan account. Also it is stated by the complainant that, even the opposite party did not furnish the copy of the policy. There cannot be any dispute that insurance of the vehicle is compulsory and if and whenever demanded by the authorized officers, the policy shall have to be shown to them. When that is so, it was the duty of the opposite party bank to intimate the complainant regarding insurance and also furnish the insurance policy to the complainant. That has not been done by the opposite party. It is relevant to note that, in the second paragraph of the version, the bank also contend that as per the agreement, complainant has specifically agreed his responsibility to adequately insure the hypothecated vehicle. When that fact is well within the knowledge of the opposite party, it was its duty to ascertain whether the complainant has complied with the said condition of the agreement, before taking another insurance policy in respect of the same vehicle for the same period. It is further contended by the opposite party that, the complainant did not furnish the copy of the policy to the opposite party. In this regard, the complainant has stated in his affidavit that in the agreement, there is no such term or condition. As could be same from the copy of the agreement, we find no such condition that the complainant to furnish copy of the insurance policy to the opposite party.<br /> <br /> 11. Considering the facts and the evidence on record, we found deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and accordingly, our finding on the point is partly in affirmative.<br /> <br /> 12. Point No. 2:- From the discussion made above and conclusion arrived at, we pass the following order: <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The opposite party is hereby directed to refund a sum of Rs. 4,486+3,503= 7,989/- to the complainant within a month from the date of the order and on failure, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 12% p.a. <br /> 3. There is no order as to cost.<br /> 4. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 3rd November 2009)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (A.T.Munnoli) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar. J)<br /> Member<br /> <br />