(Delivered on  12/2/2018)

Per Hon’ble Smt. Jayshree Yengal, Member

1. These two appeals challenged the order dated 3/12/2014, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Chandrapur, partly allowing the consumer complaint bearing No. 30/2013 and thereby directing the opposite party ( for short OP)  Nos. 1 and 2/appellants in the aforesaid two appeals to pay the complainant Rs. 10,00,000/-towards the monitory loss within 45 days from the date of receipt of the order & further directing the OPs Nos. 1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally Rs. 10,000/- and Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental and physical harassment  and cost of proceeding respectively.
2. Respondent No. 1 M/s S.N. Buggawar and Son’s through its proprietor in both the above mentioned appeals  are referred as complainant. Resp. No. 1 M/s S.N. Timber Mart through its proprietor referred as complainant

Appellant SBI General Insurance Company in appeal No. 107 of 2015 is referred as opposite party (OP for short) No. 1and appellant SBI in appeal No. 65 of 2015 through its branch manager, Ballarpur, District Chandrapur is referred as opposite party ( OP for short) No. 2, for the sake of convenience.

3. We proceed to decide both the appeals by this common order as they challenged the same  order passed  in the consumer complaint bearing No. 30/2013
4. Facts in brief as set out by the complainant are as under.

1. Complainant Mr. S.S. Buggawar is running a business of saw mill for earning his livelihood. The complainant  was availing cash credit facility  from OP No. 2, SBI and he insured his business with OP No. 1 SBI General Insurance Company through OP No. 2. The complainant  purchased the insurance policy covering the risk  of saw mill and timber depot business from SBI General  Insurance company/ OP No. 1 through OP No. 2 SBI. The OP No. 2 debited Rs. 3441/- in the account of the complainant towards the premium  and the sum assured  under the policy was ten lakh  towards the risk  covered. The OP No. 2 informed the complainant that he would soon receive the copy of the insurance policy.
2. It is the contention of the complainant that in the early morning of 1/6/2012, the saw mill of the complainant caught fire  as a result,  the machine, wood, raw material  and  the office goods were burnt to ashes. The complainant immediately informed his bank OP No. 2 about the incident  and  requested to forward his claim to OP No. 1.
3. It is further contended  by the complainant that the representative of OP Nos. 1 and 2 visited and made inspection of the spot and vide letter dated 6/6/2012, the complainant was informed  by OP No. 1 that insurance claim would be  paid soon. The complainant repeatedly requested the OP No. 2 to pay the insurance claim . The OP No. 2 by letter dated 6/7/2012 informed the complainant that the claim was already forwarded to OP No. 1  on 4/6/2012  and 19/6/2012. The complainant was also informed  that the claim would be settled within 15 to 20 days. The complainant repeatedly requested the OP to pay the insurance claim as he was  facing financial constraint. The complainant came to know that the OP No. 1/Insurance company was avoiding to pay the insurance claim and  has taken a false   stand that the complainant was never given the insurance policy and the amount of premium  was returned to the complainant. The complainant had neither received any letter informing about the same nor any cheque towards return of premium amount was received by him.
4. Therefore alleging deficiency in service, the complainant filed consumer complaint and sought for payment of  Rs. 11,63,750/-  which was inclusive  of sum assured of  Rs. 10,00,000/-with 18 percent per annum interest from 1/6/2012 to 22/02/2013, Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental and physical harassment, Rs. 10,000/- towards cost of proceeding and Rs. 2,500/- towards notice charges.

5. Both the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 resisted the complaint by filing their written version and denied all the adverse allegations of the complainant.
6. The OP No. 1 SBI General Insurance Company has specifically submitted in its written version  that the amount of premium received by it  was returned to the complainant as the risk for the business of the complainant could not be taken due to underwriting policy and therefore the insurance policy was not issued to the complainant. The refusal of commencing  risk and refund of premium amount was intimated  to  OP No. 2. The OP No. 1 therefore denied to have rendered any deficiency in service and sought for dismissal of complaint.
7. The OP No. 2  State Bank of India  specifically submitted in its written version  that it had debited to account of the complainant  Rs. 3,441/- on 27/3/2012 towards the insurance premium as instructed by the complainant and paid said premium of Rs. 3,441/- to OP No. 1,insurance company.  It had not received any cheque nor any intimation in respect of the return  of premium amount by OP No. 1. The OP No. 2 therefore denied to have rendered any deficiency in service and sought for dismissal of complaint.
8. The Forum after hearing both the sides and considering evidence adduced by the parties, partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid. The Forum has specifically observed in the impugned order that OP No. 1/SBI General Insurance Company  and OP No. 2 State Bank of India have jointly and severally rendered deficiency in service and therefore held both of them liable to pay the insurance claim.

As regards OP No. 2 State Bank of India, the Forum has observed that it failed to take any follow up in respect of whether the insurance policy was issued or not.The OP No. 1 failed to prove that it had credited the amount of premium into the complainants account as the policy was not issued to the complainant.

9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, both the OP Nos. 1 and 2 have preferred these two appeal.
10. We heard counsel for the appellants  and respondent in both the appeals. We also perused the copies of the complaint, written version and documents filed on record.
11. We perused the letter dated 7/8/2012 addressed to the OP No. 1 by OP No. 2 in which it is admitted that the premium was credited to SBI General Insurance account  from the CC account of the complainant on 27/3/2012. The said letter further mentioned that the insurance company had never informed even the bank that the policy was rejected. The courier received by the bank contained only 12 policies of other proposals  and not the cheque.
12. The only inference that can be drawn  in absence of any policy documents is that the SBI/OP No. 2  has performed its part of the service of crediting the premium amount in the account of OP No. 1. There are no documents or copy of terms and conditions of the policy that the bank was under an obligation to render other services in respect of purchase of insurance policy. Therefore we are of the reasoned view that holding SBI/OP No. 2 jointly and severally liable for the insurance claim cannot be sustained in law. Hence appeal bearing No. A/15/65 deserves to be allowed as filed by OP No. 2
13. The SBI General Insurance Company/OP No. 1 on the other hand has failed to adduce any evidence in respect of the premium being returned to the complainant, the bank/OP No. 2 or the complainant being informed about non acceptance of risk due to under writing reasons or any such other reason. The insurance company admits receiving the amount of premium from the complainant on 27/3/2012 but has failed to bring any evidence in respect of returning the same. The letter dated 19/6/2012 written by OP No. 2  to the SBI General Insurance company/OP No. 1 makes a reference about the courier dated 15/5/2012 in which there is a mentioned of 12 policies  of other matters which were received by the Regional Manager of respondent No. 2 from OP No. 1. It shows that no cheque was received by OP No. 2 from OP No. 1 about return of premium.  The only inference that can be drawn, is that the defence taken by the insurance company is an after thought and also not proved by any cogent documentary evidence.
14.  For the foregoing reason, we find no glaring infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order as regards fixing of liability on OP No. 1 which filed  appeal bearing No. A/15/107. Therefore the appeal No. a/15/107 deserves to be dismissed being devoid of merits. In the result, we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. The appeal bearing No.  65/2015 filed by the State Bank of India/OP No. 2 is allowed.
2. The appeal bearing 107/2015 filed by SBI General Insurance Company Ltd./OP No. 1 is dismissed.
3. The impugned order passed in consumer complaint No.  30/13 as against OP No. 1 is maintained.
4. The impugned order so far as it is passed against State Bank of India/OP No. 2 is set aside.
5. No order as to cost in appeal
6. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.