2. Munnangi Venkateswara Rao,

    S/o Venkata Rathaiah,

    R/o Munnangi village and post,

    Kollipara Mandal,

    Guntur district.                                               …opposite parties

        This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on                     08-06-11 in the presence of Sri D. Pitchi Reddy, advocate for the complainant and of Sri G.E.Reddy, advocate for 1^st opposite party, 2nd opposite party remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao, President:-

        The complainant filed this complaint U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking Rs.2,74,820/- towards loss of turmeric, Rs.50,000/- towards compensation, Rs.20,000/- towards legal expense and Rs.60,000/- towards interest.

2.     In brief the averments of the complaint are these:

The complainant kept 151 bags of turmeric worth of Rs.2,74,820/- in the godown of Bhimavarapu Basivireddy in Kollipara village.  The 1^st opposite party sanctioned Rs.1,40,000/- to the complainant on 04-06-04 on hypothecation of turmeric stock.   The 1^st opposite party insured the said stock with insurance company and kept policy with it.   The complainant learnt that the authorities of 1^st opposite party inspected the stock on 18-10-04 and in June, 2005 and found it correct.   The complainant defaulted the payment due on          03-06-05.   The 1^st opposite party required the complainant to contact the Branch Manager of Kollipara branch for verification of stock.    There was no response from the bank authorities when the complainant approached.   On 27-11-04 the branch manager of the 1^st opposite party at Kollipara branch opened the doors and conducted panchanama and found 96 bags of turmeric and 72 bags of turmeric waste from out of 453 bags belonging to the complainant, 2^nd opposite party and one Bhimavarapu Govardhana Reddy.  The Bank Manager of the 1^st opposite party at Kollipara divided the existing stocks into                 3 equal parts and appropriated Rs.35.420/- credited to the complainant’s account.   The 1^st opposite party did not whisper regarding loss of 119 bags and did not inform the coverage of insurance for Rs.2,74,820/-.   The complainant came to know about loss of stock of turmeric and insurance.  In OS.No.137/05 filed on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali and judgement was delivered on 02-06-08.   All the documents are under the custody of the bank and the complainant had no knowledge of all the documents and the insurance policy taken by the bank.   The 1^st opposite party has to claim the insured amount and ought to have credited it to the account of the complainant.   The matter is not pending in any Court of law.  

1. The 2^nd opposite party remained exparte. 
2. The contention of the 1^st opposite party in brief is hereunder:

The complainant is not a consumer within the purview of Consumer Protection Act.   There is no consumer dispute.   The complaint is bad for not adding the insurance company.  The 1^st opposite party filed OS 137/05 (a comprehensive suit) on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Tenali and was decreed by the Court.  The complainant preferred AS 192/08 on the file of 11^th Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Tenali and it was allowed.  The 1^st opposite party preferred second appeal to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh vide SASR 36825/09 and is pending.   As parties are one and the same this Forum has no jurisdiction.  The complainant is responsible for the alleged loss.  The 1^st opposite party is not responsible for any loss.  The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-12 on behalf of complainant and Ex.B-1 on behalf of 1^st opposite party were marked.

5.      Now the points that arose for consideration in this case are:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether there is consumer dispute?
3. Whether the opposite party committed deficiency of service?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation?
5. To what relief?

6.   Admitted facts:

          1.   The branch of 1^st opposite party at Kollipara                                sanctioned a loan of Rs.1,40,000/- to the                                               complainant on pledge of turmeric (Ex.A-7).

2. The 1^st opposite party insured the turmeric for          Rs.2,80,000/- (Ex.A-5).

          3. The 1^st opposite party filed OS.No.137/05 on the file of                        the Prl.Senior Civil Judge, Tenali and it was decreed                      (Ex.A-1).

          4. AS.No.192/08 on the file of 11^th Addl.District &                                       Sessions Judge, Tenali filed by the complainant                                        herein was allowed (Ex.A-2).

          5. The 1^st opposite party filed SASR 36825/09 (Ex.A-3).

7.   POINTS 1&2:-  

        In The Secretary, Orissa Khadi and Village Industries Board vs. Smt Kuni RAni Bhanja 2009 (4) CPR 277 (NC) it was held that once the loan has been sanctioned by any financial authority, more so, by a public body, then the loanee will come within the definition of consumer. 

        In Manager, ICICI Bank Limited vs. Shaji 2009 (4) CPR 155 it was held that an account holder is bank’s consumer. 

        Taking a clue from the above decisions, it can be said that the complainant is a consumer and there is consumer dispute within the purview of Consumer Protection Act.  Hence, these points are answered in favour of the complainant. 

8.   POINT No.3:-    Ex.A-2  Judgement revealed that the 1^st appellate Court discussed about the insurance policy also.   Ex.A-3 further revealed that second appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court.   Ex.B-1 revealed that SASR.No.36825/09 is pending as on               17-04-11.    The insurance company was not made as a party to the complaint by the complainant for the reasons best known to him. 

        In Mrs. Viswalakshmi Sasidharan & Ors. Vs. The Branch Manager, Syndicate Bank, Belgaum 1997 (1) CPR 107 it was held that mere filing of the bank suit for recovery of the amount may not be an absolute bar on the consumer commission to go into the question of deficiency in banking service.

        In this case the suit filed by the bank and the 1^st appeal filed by the complainant was already decided and a second appeal is pending before the Hon’ble High Court.   Therefore the above decision has no application to the facts of the case and is distinguishable.  

        In Corporation Bank vs. Smt Sandhya Shenoy and another              2009 CTJ 303 (CP) (NCDRC) the question that arose was whether the bank was liable if failed to renew the policy.   This case is distinguishable on facts and as such has no application.        

        As the matter is pending before the High Court in another form touching the insurance policy we are of the view that this Forum cannot entertain this dispute.   Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that the 1^st opposite party committed deficiency of service.  Therefore, this point is answered against the complainant.

9.   POINT No.4:-   In view of findings on points 1 and 2 the complainant is not entitled to any compensation.   Hence, this point is also answered against the complainant.

10.   POINT No.5:-   In view of above findings, in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Dictated to junior stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 14th day of June, 2011.         

Sd/-XXX                                   Sd/-XXX                                 Sd/-XXX

MEMBER                                             MEMBER                                        PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

    DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For 1^st opposite party:        

                                                                                Sd/-XXX

                                                                                PRESIDENT