Hukum Chand Bhanot Vs. Indian Bank Ltd. & Others

Present:                      Sh. Rinku Chumber, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

1.                             This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he is retired from bank on 31.05.2017. During his job, being staff member of Indian Bank Ltd. and he was posted at Indian Bank Branch G. T. Road, Phagwara and there from he got a loan of Rs.1,67,000/-, after completing all the formalities. The said loan was obtained on 08.10.2002, which was payable in 180 installments, each installment was of Rs.1546/- per month. The loan has to be paid within 15 years. On 08.10.2002, an agreement of Hypothecation was executed between the OP and the complainant and as per terms and conditions of the agreement dated 08.10.2002, the hypothecated goods have to be insured by the bank during the currency of the security i.e. during the whole period/term of the loan. The complainant has the obligation to maintain the requisite balance in his account. The complainant had requisite balance in his account during the pendency of the loan period. As per the clause 6 of the agreement of hypothecation, the OPs are required to get insurance policy, but the OP failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of Clause 6 of the agreement. As per the terms of the Clause 6, it was the duty on the part of the OP to get insured the vehicle during the whole period of currency of the security, but the complainant came to know that the OP has not got insured the vehicle onward, 2012 and the vehicle in question met with an accident in the month of December, 2016, the said vehicle having No.PB-36-B-9335, which was purchased with the loan sanctioned by the OP. Even after this incident, the complainant regularly made the payment of the installments as per terms of the agreement executed between the complainant and OP. On 05.06.2017, the entire loan amount was returned and the loan account was closed accordingly by the OP No.2. When the vehicle met with an accident, there upon the complainant received summon from the Court at Hoshiarpur. Thereafter, the complainant engaged the counsel for contesting the claim petition pending at Hoshiarpur. The counsel for the complainant told the complainant that he required the insurance policy for filling befitting reply to the claim petition. Accordingly, the complainant approached the OP No.2 for providing him insurance policy of vehicle, but they refused to do so. Then leaving with no alternative, the complainant accordingly wrote a letter to the bank to supply him the insurance policies with regard to his vehicle bearing registration No.PB-36-B-9335. The OP gave a vague reply, vide letter dated 04.10.2017. On receipt of the reply and copy of the policies attached with the reply, the complainant got shocked to learn that the OP was not got insured the vehicle since 2012 nor did the OPs ever ask the complainant to get the vehicle insured at his own. The parties never sent any intimation or letter to the complainant, to get insured the vehicle at his own. It is pertinent to mention here that all the insurance policies of the vehicle in question were arranged by the OP at his own, which the OP did as per the clause 6 of the agreement dated 08.10.2002. It is the duty of the OPs to insured the hypothecated vehicle during the currency of the security. It is to be added here that the insurance cover remained in the possession of the bank as per the precedent prevalent in the banks and even as per the terms of the loan agreement, which has been reproduced herein above and due to this reason, the complainant was not aware about this fact earlier.

2. That the complainant disclosed this fact to his counsel, that the bank has not insured the vehicle in contravention of the agreement of loan. The counsel for the complainant disclosed him that now he has to pay the compensation amount from his pocket. Had the bank insured the vehicle as per Clause 6 of the agreement of hypothecation, then the whole liability is of the insurance company to pay the compensation to the complainant. So, there is a deficiency in service on the part of the OP and thus, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to indemnify the loss suffered to the complainant, to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- and also to pay compensation for harassment and mental torture, to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.25,000/-.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant on the question of admission and also scanned the file very minutely.

4. After hearing the argument of the learned counsel for the complainant as well as perusing the pleading, we find the main grievances of the complainant against the OP is only that the OPs are bound to get insurance of the hypothecated vehicle as per clause 6 of the agreement dated 08.10.2002. We think that the whole facts of the complaint are revolving around the clause 6 of the agreement of hypothecation dated 08.10.2002 and if we go through the clause 6 of the agreement, then we can say without any hesitation that there is no direct or indirect liability fastened upon the OP to get insurance of the hypothecated vehicle rather the duty casted upon the borrower/complainant that the borrower shall duly and punctually pay the premium on the policies at least one week before the same shall become due or payable and hand over the receipt to the Bank/OP within seven days of the payment and the borrowers/complainant agree not to raise at any time any dispute as to the extent of the insurable interest of the bank. As per this clause, the complainant has no right to raise any type of dispute as to the extent of the insurable interest of the bank. No doubt, a liberty was also given to the OP/bank to get insurance renew of the vehicle, but it is not obligatory, it is totally discretion given to the OP. So, with these observations, we are of the considered opinion that there is no bounded duty of the OP to get insurance the hypothecated vehicle rather it is the duty of the complainant to get insurance of the vehicle and submit the receipt of payment of premium to the OP/bank.

5. In the light of above detailed discussion, we find that there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable, thus, the same is dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to the complainant free of cost, as per Rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

18.09.2018 Member President