Taken up through video conferencing.

1.      This Revision Petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘Act 1986’) in challenge to the Order dated 14.02.2011 of The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (‘State Commission’) in F.A. No. 131 of 2009 arising out of the Order dated 26.03.2009 in C.C. No. 01 of 2005 passed by The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Sitamarhi (‘District Commission’).

2.      Heard learned Counsel for the Revisionist Complainant Firm, learned Counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to No. 4 Bank and learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 Insurance Co.

Perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 26.03.2009 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 14.02.2011 of the State Commission and the Petition.

3.      The dispute relates to repudiation of an insurance claim.

4.      The factual matrix of the matter has been succinctly captured by the State Commission in paras 3 and 4 of its Order of 14.02.2011:

“3.      The complaint was filed by the complainant alleging therein that he had mortgaged his property for obtaining loan from Canara Bank, Sitamarhi Branch, which was sanctioned in two installments.  There was grant of loan of Rs. 5,94,000/- and odd, out of which Rs. 2,24,000/- was for availing cash credit facility. The appellant started running his stone crushing business. The loan was sanctioned in the year 2002 and proper insurance after deducting the amount was made by the Bank which were deducted Rs. 5687 and Rs. 10,323/- by way of insurance premium on 14-03-2002 and 07.03.2002 respectively but in the year 2004, no such deduction was made towards insurance premium payment with the result that when there was devastating flood in the entire area on 09-07-2004, the material kept inside the business premises was washed away causing loss to the appellant and got the damaged crusher machine repaired after spending Rs.40,000/- on 19-08-2004.

“4.      The claim was made of huge amount. Canara Bank appeared and repudiated the claim, who are respondents here and raised the issue that as a matter of fact, there was no agreement in casting responsibility on the Bank to pay the insurance premium and to have remained particular in such payment so as to safeguard the interest of loanee.  Of course, the Bank did pay the aforesaid premium but thereafter the loanee ceased to comply necessary direction for such business operation and financial transaction by submitting necessary statement of stock and the appellant had withdrawn entire amount from the term loan account and working capital account, so it was not possible for the Bank to get the unit insured. It was further submitted that a heavy amount stood due to be realized from the loanee.”

5.      The District Commission vide its Order dated 26.03.2009 dismissed the Complaint.

For ready appreciation, extracts of the appraisal made by the District Commission are reproduced below:

“6.      From the pleadings of the parties, it is apparent that M/s Jagdamba Enterprises of Fakira Prasad had not been insured on the day 09.7.2004 when the alleged flood had entered into the premises of M/s Jagdamba Enterprises.

“7.      From para 13 of the complaint of the Complainant, it is found that the complainant has prayed to pass order the O.Ps. to make payment of the insurance amount. Then there is no insurance of M/s Jagdamba Enterprises with the O.P. no. 5, no order to make payment of insurance amount can be passed in this case.

“8.      For the insurance of M/s Jagdamba Enterprises, the proprietor has to apply not the loaner. From the pleadings of the complainant, it does not appear that he had applied for the insurance of M/s Jagdamba Enterprises for the period in which the date 09.7.2004 falls. On the request of the complainant, the amount of premium of the insurance can be deducted from the working capital allowed to the compliant by the bank.

“9.      From the facts of the case, it also appears that the complainant had not furnished statement of stock of M/s Jagdamba Enterprises for any month in the bank. The complainant has not refuted this pleading of the O.Ps. No. 1 to 4 by filing any copy of the furnished statement of stock of the unit.

“10.    The complainant has not brought in evidence the register of stock in trade and sale/purchase receipts to show that the complainant purchased boulders and sold stone chips and stone dust, and to show the stock of boulder and stone chips and stone dust in the premises of M/s Jagdamba Enterprise on the fateful day. The complainant has not pleaded that those documents had been washed away in the said flood.  The complainant has not pleaded as to from where he had purchased the boulders to crush for making chips.

“11.    No report of any Govt. official has been filed to show that actually flood water had entered into the premises of M/s Jagdamba enterprise and had washed away stone chip and stone dust.

“12.    Therefore, in view of discussion of facts and evidence, it appears that the complainant has not been able to prove him for getting insurance amount. All the more, it is evident and apparent that the Complainant’s M/s Jagdamba Enterprises was not under insurance cover on 09.7.2004. So he is not entitled to get insurance amount. So we may, it is found that the - - - illegible – can pay the amount as claimed to the complainant.

“13.    Under these circumstances, the complaint of the complainant M/s Jagdamba Enterprises of Fakira Prasad C. C. No. 01 of 2005 is dismissed but without cost.”

6.      The State Commission vide its Order dated 14.02.2011 dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the findings of the District Commission.

For ready appreciation, extracts of the appraisal made by the State Commission are reproduced below:

“5.      We have examined the material on the record as also the documents, which are available in the appellate forum from which we find that on the relevant date, the premium was to be paid in the month of March but even then the debt figure rose to Rs. 5,43,000/- and odd and thereafter there was no deposit till 28-02-2004. In such situation, the debt figure rose to Rs. 6,45,000/- in the month of April, 2006.

“6.      In the absence of any deposit towards principal or interest and non-production of details of business transaction, stock register as called for from the Bank so as to assess the stock position on the relevant night when the devastating flood damaged the material kept inside the business premises, which were washed away.  We are unable to presume that actually anything by way of loss were sustained by the appellant. Not only that, there is also averment to this effect that even no document was filed so as to show that any flood had ever devastated other parts of the town.

“7.      In the circumstances, after scrutinizing and examining the papers on the record, we are of the view that the learned District Forum has rightly considered everything in its entirety and ultimately dismissed the complaint.

“8.      We do not find any merit in this appeal to take a contrary view than what has been stated in the impugned order by the learned District Forum, who seems to have examined everything in detail and passed the order on consideration of all papers.

“9.      In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.”

7.      It is seen that the State Commission has passed a well-appraised reasoned Order. It has confirmed the findings of the District Commission. No palpable crucial error in appreciating the evidence, as may cause to require de novo re-appreciation, is visible. No jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice, is visible. On examination of the evidence on record concurrent findings have been arrived at by the two Fora below, that the Complainant Firm is not entitled to get the claimed insurance amount. Nothing warrants interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

8.      The Petition, being misconceived and bereft of merit, is dismissed, with stern advice of caution to the Complainant Firm; summary proceedings under the alternative additional remedy available to ‘consumer’ are not meant to be instruments for deliberate wrongful gain in the way and manner the Complainant Firm has attempted in the instant case.

The State Commission’s Order of 14.02.2011 is sustained.

9.      The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the Revisionist Firm and to the Respondents No. 1 to No. 4 Bank and to the Respondent No. 5 Insurance Co. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.