CC Filed on 30.04.2009<br /> Disposed on 18.03.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 18th day of March 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 34/2009<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. K.N. Narasimha Raju,<br /> Prop. M/s. Bhagyalakshmi Video Vision,<br /> Near New Govt. High School,<br /> 5th Cross, Kuvempu Nagara, <br /> Kolar City – 563 101.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. B.S. Sathyanarayana & others) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> Karnataka State Financial Corporation,<br /> CRS Complex,<br /> Near KSRTC Bus Stand,<br /> M.B. Road,<br /> Kolar City – 563 101.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. B.N. Vasudeva Murthy) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to complainant towards the loss sustained due to non-obtaining of comprehensive insurance policy by OP for the complainant’s unit “M/s. Bhagyalakshmi Video Vision” for the period from 08.08.2004 to 07.08.2004 along with compensation, interest, costs, etc.,<br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of the case, required for the disposal of the controversy involved in it may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainant was sanctioned a loan of Rs.5,00,000/- by OP as per the terms and conditions stated in loan sanction order dated 13.03.2002, for carrying the business of Video Coverage and Mixing. The loan was released on 16.07.2002. One of the conditions stated in loan sanction order relating to insurance is as follows:<br /> <br /> “IÄ) ¸ÀA¸ÉÞAiÀÄ ªÀÄAdÆgÀÄ ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀ ¸Á®PÀ ±ÉÃ.60 gÀµÀÄÖ ªÉÆvÀÛªÀ£ÀÄß «vÀj¸ÀĪÀ ªÉÆzÀ®Ä vÁªÀÅ vÀªÀÄä WÀlPÀzÀ°ègÀĪÀ D¹ÛUÀ½UÉ ¨ÉAQ, zÉÆA©, ªÀÄĵÀÌgÀ, «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀgÀ§gÁf¤AzÀ MzÀUÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ ºÁ¤ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÉʪÀiÁ¤PÀ ªÉÊ¥ÀjÃvÀåUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÀA¨sÀ«¸À§ºÀÄzÁzÀ ºÁ¤UÀ½UÉ «ªÉÄ ªÀiÁr¹, «ªÉÄ ªÀiÁr¹gÀĪÀ D¹ÛUÀ¼ÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÉÞUÉ DzsÁgÀªÁVgÀĪÀÅzÀ£ÀÄß «ªÀiÁ ¥Á°¹AiÀÄ°è £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹ «ªÀiÁ ¥Á®¹AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¸ÉÞUÉ ºÁdgÀÄ¥Àr¸ÀvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀA¸ÉÞÄAzÀ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArgÀĪÀ ¸Á®ªÀÅ ZÁ°ÛAiÀÄ°ègÀĪÀªÀgÉUÉ ªÉÄÃ¯É w½¹zÀAvÉ «ªÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁr¹ ¥Á°¹AiÀÄ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀA¸ÉÞUÉ vÀ¥ÀàzÉ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ, vÀ¦àzÀ°è ªÉÄð£ÀªÀÅUÀ½AzÀ ¸ÀA¨sÀ«¸À§ºÀÄzÁzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà ºÁ¤UÀÆ ¤ÃªÉà dªÁ¨ÁÝgÀgÁVgÀÄwÛÃj.”<br /> <br /> It is alleged by the complainant that he himself did not take the insurance policy as per the above condition stated in the sanction order, therefore the OP went on obtaining the insurance policy for Rs.3,00,000/- covering the above stated risks in respect of complainant’s unit for which loan was granted. The premiums paid by OP were debited to the “other debits” of complainant’s loan account. The complainant was repaying the said premiums to OP. <br /> <br /> There was house breaking and theft in the complainant’s Unit on the night of 02/03 – May 2005. The complainant gave First Information of the said incident to Kolar Town Police and a case in Crime No. 69/2005 for offence under sec 457 and 380 of I.P.C, was registered. The complainant alleged that all the instruments relating to Video Coverage and Mixing worth Rs.3,00,000/- were stolen in the said incident. For the relevant period when the theft had taken place, there existed a Fire Policy obtained with M/s. IFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Limited for Rs.3,00,000/- for the period from 08.08.2004 to 07.08.2005. It appears the OP forwarded the claim papers to Insurance Company. But the Insurance Company rejected the claim on the ground that the policy obtained did not cover the risk of Burglary and Theft. The rejection of claim by Insurance Company was intimated to complainant by OP through letter dated 09.02.2007. <br /> <br /> The complainant alleged in the complaint that the Officials of the OP namely Sri. Nayak (Appraisal Manager), Sri. Prasad (Deputy Manager) and Sri. Rajanna (Recovery & Insurance Manager) who inspected the Unit M/s. Bhagyalakshmi Video Vision and Sri. Pandu, A.G.M., orally assured him at the time of sanction of loan that they would obtain “Theft, Burglary and Fire Insurance Policy” to his Unit and OP started debiting Rs.1,512/- towards the insurance premiums to the loan account of complainant since from the date of sanction of loan. The grievance of the complainant is that as against such oral assurance for obtaining comprehensive insurance policy the OP obtained only the Fire Insurance Policy. Therefore the complainant contended that the non-obtaining of comprehensive policy covering all types of risks to his Unit amounted to deficiency in service by OP. <br /> <br /> 3. The OP filed the version denying any deficiency in service on its part. It denied that there was oral assurance for obtaining comprehensive policy as alleged by complainant. It contended that as per the terms of loan sanction order the complainant was required to obtain insurance policy covering the risks stated therein and should have got an endorsement done in the policy disclosing the hypothecation/mortgage of complainant’s Video Unit in its favour and should have handed over copy of that policy to its custody. It is contended that for covering any other risks like house breaking and burglary the complainant could have obtained the proper policy and it was not the duty of OP. Therefore OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> The complainant as well as the OP sought for amendments of their pleadings. The said requests were allowed and the parties filed further pleadings. <br /> <br /> 4. The complainant filed affidavit and certain documents in support of his case. One Ravishankar, the Manager (legal) of OP filed affidavit and certain documents in support of the defence. We heard the arguments addressed by the Learned Counsel for the parties. <br /> <br /> 5. The following points arise for our consideration:<br /> Point No.1: Whether complainant proves that there is<br /> deficiency in service by OP as alleged?<br /> <br /> Point No.2: If point No.1 is held in affirmative, to which<br /> reliefs the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> Point No.3: To what order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. After considering the records and the submissions of parties our findings on the above points are as follows:<br /> Point No.1: The gist of the allegations made by complainant is that at the time of sanction of the loan certain officials of OP named in para.4 of the complaint assured the complainant that the OP itself would arrange to take a comprehensive insurance policy for his Unit covering the risks of Theft, Burglary and Fire, etc., and they would debit the premium paid to his loan account and the OP started debiting premium of Rs.1,512/- in the loan account from the date of sanction of the loan. In support of it he produced the loan account statements maintained by OP relating to “other debits” where the insurance premiums are debited. The said statement of account is marked as document No.5&6 by complainant. However the documents 5&6 do not support the allegation of complainant that from the date of loan the insurance premium was being debited to his account. The entries in document 5&6 show that on 08.08.2003 there was debit of Rs.1,512/- towards insurance premium and again on 04.08.2004 there was debit of Rs.1,522/- towards insurance premium. Further it is shown that on 13.02.2004 the complainant credited Rs.1,512/- and again on 30.09.2004 he credited Rs.1,522/- to OP for repayment of the insurance premiums spent by OP. It is explained by OP that another debit entry towards insurance premium for Rs.1,512/- made on 08.08.2003 was a wrong entry and that was reversed by subsequent credit entry made on 09.10.2003 for Rs.1,512/- and that the credit entry for Rs.1,512/- made on 13.02.2004 was only a book entry for closing the earlier loan before rescheduling the payment of loan and that after rescheduling the loan on 13.02.2004 again Rs.1,512/- was debited and on the same day a credit entry for the said amount was made on receipt of Rs.1,512/- from complainant. Therefore in essence as per this statement of account the OP paid two insurance premiums on 08.08.2003 and 04.08.2004 and the complainant repaid the said amounts on 13.02.2004 and 30.09.2004. <br /> <br /> The loan was released on 16th July 2002. There was a condition in the loan sanction order that before release of 60% of the loan the complainant should have obtained the Fire insurance policy for his unit. Hence one can presume that at or about the time of release of loan the complainant himself had obtained the insurance policy covering the risks stated in the sanction order. If the OP itself had obtained the first insurance policy there should have been debit entry in the loan account of “other debits” of complainant for having paid the insurance premium. As already noted there is no such debit entry for the year 2002 towards payment of insurance premium. From the above facts it can be inferred that the first policy for insurance was obtained by complainant himself. This fact makes the contention of complainant regarding oral assurance alleged by him highly improbable. It may be true that in the version the OP has not specifically contended that the first insurance policy was taken by complainant himself. However there is no specific admission by OP that it had taken the first policy for one or other reason. On the other hand it is found that the allegation of complainant that from the beginning of the loan, OP was taking the insurance policy and debiting the premium to his loan account is not substantiated from the documentary evidence produced by complainant. <br /> <br /> The complainant has not produced all the pages of sanction order, but he produced only the first page of it. The OP has produced copy of the sanction order. Before amendment of the complaint the complainant had not specifically stated that the assurance given to him by the officials of the OP was only an oral assurance. Earlier he had averred that the OP had assured him at the time of sanction of loan that it would obtain comprehensive insurance policy. It appears because of such averment made in the complaint the complainant intentionally avoided to produce the other pages of sanction order pertaining the term regarding insurance. The sanction order specifically states that Fire insurance policy was to be taken before the release of loan. If really there was an oral assurance at the time of sanction of loan to obtain comprehensive insurance policy, the complainant should have come to know the contradictory term mentioned in the sanction order for obtaining only the Fire insurance policy. Admittedly the complainant had not taken any steps to amend that condition regarding insurance. In any event the complainant could have obtained the policy for comprehensive insurance covering all risks for any period, even though the sanction order prescribed only for obtaining Fire insurance policy. Therefore we hold that complainant came with a false story of oral assurance alleged to have been given by the officials of OP for obtaining comprehensive insurance by them at the time of granting loan. <br /> <br /> The complainant submitted that in case of some other loanees during the same period the OP had prescribed the condition for obtaining comprehensive insurance in the loan sanction orders and the comprehensive insurance policies were taken. He produced copies of papers relating to two other loanees. It can be seen that in the sanction order itself in those cases it was stated that comprehensive insurance should be taken. In case of complainant the sanction order prescribes for taking only the Fire insurance policy. Therefore those instances are not helpful to complainant. It is not known under which circumstances in those cases comprehensive policies were insisted. It can be seen that the rate of premium would be higher if one goes on increasing the coverage of different risks in the insurance. In the case of complainant the OP might have thought it fit to obtain only Fire insurance policy. There is no legal obligation on OP to insist for comprehensive insurance for the hypothecated/mortgaged property. Merely because extra precaution is not taken by OP in not insisting the comprehensive policy, we cannot say that there was deficiency in service. For the above reasons we hold that the complainant has failed to prove deficiency in service by OP. Hence point No.1 is held in negative.<br /> <br /> Point No.2: As point No.1 is held in negative, the point No.2 does not arise for consideration.<br /> <br /> Point No.3: Hence we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 18th day of March 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />