STATE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION

BIHAR, PATNA

Appeal No. 293 of 2012

Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Patpara Branch, Patpara, Rajnagar, District- Madhubani

                                                                                                                                                                        … Appellant

Versus

Madan Kumar Jha, Son of Sri Mohan Jha, Resident of Simri Satghara (Patratol), PS- Rajnagar, District- Madhubani

                                                                                                                                                                  …. Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant: Adv. Ajay Kumar Sinha & Ajit Kumar Sinha

Counsel for the Respondent: Adv. Sanjeev Kumar Jha

Before,

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar, President

Mr. Ram Prawesh Das, Member

Dated 25.04.2023

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed by the Appellant/Opposite party-Central Bank of India through its Branch Manager, for setting aside the order dated 30.05.2012 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Madhubani in Complaint Case no. 48 of 2008 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Consumer Forum has directed the appellant to deduct Rs. 30,000/- of insured amount from the loan account of complainant from the date i.e 06.12.2006 on which date first cow died during insurance period.  
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case is that complainant filed a complaint case in District Consumer Forum, Madhubani stating therein that complainant was sanctioned loan of Rs. 87,500/- on 11.02.2006 for purchase of three cows by the Central Bank of India under Prime Minister Employment Scheme and complainant thereafter purchased three cows on 16.03.2006 at the cost of Rs. 87,500/-  and the Branch Manager of Central Bank of India insured the cow for which insurance premium of Rs. 2,880/- was paid from the loan account of complainant but for the year 2007 Branch Manager did not deduct and deposited the premium amount in account of  insurance company from the loan account of complainant with respect to insured cows.
3. Subsidy is also provided by the government under PMRI scheme and it was the responsibility of the loanee bank to deduct and pay the insurance premium with respect to purchased cows till the loan amount is repaid by the loanee.
4. Cow of the complainant died on 06.12.2006 and complainant intimated the bank but no step was taken by the bank nor complainant was informed that insurance cover has been provided by which insurance company.
5.  The second cow also died on 07.05.2007 and complainant informed the bank upon which the complainant was informed by the bank that cow was not insured as such due to deficiency in service of the bank for not paying the insurance premium there was no insurance cover and as such complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 60,000/- on account of death of two cows.
6. On notice Central Bank of India appeared and filed its written statement in which it was admitted that a loan of Rs. 87,500/- was sanctioned to the complainant for purchase of 3 cows in three installments i.e Rs. 30,000/- on 11.02.2006, Rs. 30,000/- on 16.02.2006 and Rs. 27,500/- on 16.03.2006 and complainant purchased the cows and same were insured and insurance premium was paid by debiting the loan account of the complainant, but it is wrong that it is the duty of the bank to pay the insurance premium till the repayment of loan amount.
7. It is further stated that as per agreement executed by the complainant (loanee) the complainant has to keep hypothecated cows insured by the insurance company and it is optional for the bank to get the same insured by debiting the insurance premium from the loan account of the complainant, as the complainant failed to deposit the amount of installments hence the bank left

to insure the cows in the year 2007. It is further stated that it is incorrect to say that till the date of adjustment of subsidy amount in the loan account the bank has to insure the cows.

8. Complainant never informed the bank about the death of his cow on 06.12.2006 and had it been informed the bank would have informed to the insurance company. Complainant also did not inform about the death of second cow on 07.05.2007.
9. Complainant after receiving the loan amount paid only Rs. 5,000/- on 13.07.2006, Rs. 3,000/- on 18.08.2006 and Rs. 1,000/- on 26.11.2007 Total Rs. 9,000/- and the outstanding dues with interest is Rs. 97,538/- as on 26.11.2007.
10. The District Consumer Forum after hearing the parties and considering and appreciating the oral and documentary evidences adduced by both the parties held that it is an admitted fact that Rs. 2,880/- was paid on 28.02.2006 from the loan account of the complainant to the insurance company as premium for insurance of  cow which was valid till 28.02.2007 and first cow died on 06.12.2006 and on said date the cow was insured as such complainant is entitled for sum insured amount with respect to the first cow which died while insurance cover was valid and accordingly directed the Central Bank of India to deduct Rs. 30,000/- on 06.12.2006 from the loan account of complainant with respect to insured cow which died on 16.12.2006 and further ordered to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation amount for physical and mental harassment as well as Rs. 1,000/- as cost of litigation to be paid within one month failing which interest rate @12% p.a shall become payable from the date of filing of complaint case till the date of payment.
11. Aggrieved by judgment and order dated 30.05.2012 Passed by District Consumer Forum, Madhubani in Complaint Case no. 48 of 2008  Central Bank of India has preferred this appeal before the State Commission.
12. Complainant had purchased 3 cows under Prime Minister Employment Scheme on the basis of loan of Rs. 87,500/- sanctioned by Central Bank of India and hypothecation agreement was entered between the bank and the complainant and the cows were hypothecated in favour of bank and 3 cows were also insured by the insurance company by the bank for which insurance premium of Rs. 2,880/- was deducted from the loan account of complainant and paid to the insurance company and when the first cow died on 06.12.2006, the insurance cover was valid and accordingly the District Consumer Forum found that complainant was entitled to be paid sum assured amount of Rs. 30,000/- however, the second cow died on 07.05.2007 and on said date the insurance had lapsed as there was no renewal of the insurance policy either by the bank or by the complainant and accordingly, the Ld. District Consumer Forum refused to grant any benefit of insurance to the complainant with respect to the second cow.
13. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of order as impugned in this appeal and considering the materials available on record this Commission does not find any error or infirmity in the order passed by District Consumer Forum, Madhubani, accordingly, this appeal is Disposed of.

(Ram Prawesh Das)                                                                                                                        (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                                                                          President

Md. Fariduzzama