Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

A/19/1586

BANK OF INDIA - Complainant(s)

Versus

MUKESH PESHWANI - Opp.Party(s)

SH.H.S.MUTREJA

31 May 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                            

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1585 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 23.01.2019 passed in C.C.No.15/2019 by the District Commission, Khandwa)

                                                    

BANK OF INDIA                                                                                          …                    APPELLANT

 

               Versus

 

YOGESH DONGRE. & ORS.                                                                      …                    RESPONDENTS.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1733 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 23.01.2019 passed in C.C.No.15/2019 by the District Commission, Khandwa)

                                                    

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.                                                             …                    APPELLANT

 

               Versus

 

YOGESH DONGRE. & ORS.                                                                      …                    RESPONDENTS.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1586 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 23.07.2019 passed in C.C.No.16/2019 by the District Commission, Khandwa)

                                                    

BANK OF INDIA                                                                                          …                    APPELLANT

 

               Versus

 

MAHESH PESHWANI & ORS.                                                                   …                    RESPONDENTS.

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 1732 OF 2019

(Arising out of order dated 23.01.2019 passed in C.C.No.16/2019 by the District Commission, Khandwa)

                                                    

NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.                                                             …                    APPELLANT

 

               Versus

 

MAHESH PESHWANI & ORS.                                                                   …                    RESPONDENTS.

 

BEFORE:

 

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                 :      ACTING PRESIDENT

                  HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY         :       MEMBER 

 

                                      O R D E R

31.05.2024

 

      Shri Ajay Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant.

      Ms. Geeta Handa Khanuja learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 and 2-insurance company.

                                                -2-

          Shri H. R. Mutreja, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3-bank.

 

 

As per A. K. Tiwari:

            The aforesaid appeals by the opposite party no.1 & 2-National Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short ‘insurance company’) and the opposite party no.3- Bank of India (for short ‘bank’) arises out of the order dated 23.01.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Khandwa (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.Nos.15/2019 and 16/2019 whereby the complaints filed by the complainants have been allowed.

2.                Since common point involved in the aforesaid appeals therefore they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. Facts of the case are taken from First Appeal No.1585/2019 unless otherwise stated.  

3.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

4.                Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record as also the impugned order, we find that the District Commission in paragraph 18 of the impugned order that the complainant in his complainant has stated that at the time of taking the policy for the first time he had already deposited the ECS form with the bank according to which on making demand of premium by the insurance company to the bank, the bank after deducting the premium amount from the complainant’s savings account should have remitted to the insurance company, however the bank did not produce any evidence controverting the pleading of the complainant.

-3-

5.                During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that he had given specific instructions to the bank to deduct the premium amount and to remit the same to the insurance company. On the other hand learned counsel for the bank submitted that the no specific instructions were given by the complainant to deduct the premium for that particular period and to remit the same to the insurance company. Learned counsel for the insurance company argued that since the insurance company did not receive any premium, they did not continue the policy.

6.                On going through the record, we find that the complainant has not filed any such document in order to substantiate his contention that he had given specific instructions to the bank to deduct the premium, therefore, the bank is not under obligation to deduct the premium from the complainant’s account on its own and to remit the same to the insurance company. In such circumstances, the bank cannot be held deficient in service. Similarly when no premium was received by the insurance company, the insurance company did not continue the policy for that particular period and therefore, the insurance company also cannot be held liable to indemnify the complainant.

7.                Thus we find that the observations recorded by the District Commission are perverse as there is no such document on the basis of which the District Commission concluded that the complainant had given specific

 

-4-

instructions to the bank to deduct the premium and to remit the same to the insurance company.

8.                In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that the District Commission has erred in allowing the complaint. In our considered view, the impugned order deserves to be and is hereby set-aside. Consequently, the complaints filed by the complainants are dismissed.

9.                In the result, all the aforesaid appeals by the bank and the insurance company are allowed.  No order as to costs.

10.               This order be retained in First Appeal No. 1585/2019 and a copy be placed in First Appeal Nos. 1733/2019, 1586/2019 and 1732/2019.

 

 

                   (A. K. Tiwari)              (Dr. Srikant Pandey)  

                Acting President                     Member