KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
FIRST APPEAL 136/2011
JUDGMENT DATED: 28..02..2011
PRESENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
1. The Branch Manager, : APPELLANTS
Indian Bank,
Vadakarapathy Branch,
Vadakarapathy Panchayat, 1st Floor
Anu Shopping Complex,
Kozhinjampara, Chittur Taluk, Palakkad.
(By Adv.S.Sreekumaran Nair)
Vs.
Rajinamary,
W/o Muthuswamy, : RESPONDENT
Kozhinjampara,
Chittur Taluk, Palakkad
JUDGMENT
JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
The appellants are the opposite parties/Branch Manager, Indian Bank in CC.165/09 in the file of CDRF, Palakkad. The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.15000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- as cost.
2. The case of the complainant is that the complainant and 9 other members are running a unit named Gomatha Diary Unit under the District Kudumbasree unit. A loan of Rs.1,68,000/- has been availed from the opposite party bank. There was government subsidy and panchayat subsidity etc. It was alleged that a sum of Rs.1000/- was deducted from each member by the opposite party for availing the insurance for the cows. On 14..4..09 the complainant’s cow died due to sun stroke. It was found that the cows were not insured by the opposite party. The complainant has sought for a sum of Rs.60000/- as compensation.
3. The opposite parties have filed version contending that no amount has been deducted towards insurance premium. It is further contended that a suit has been filed against the complainant and others before the civil court for realization of the amount of loan.
4. The evidence adduced consisted of proof affidavits of the respective sides ; Exts.A1 to A9 and Exts. B1 and B2 and DW1.
5. The Forum has found that the opposite party has not collected any amount towards the insurance policy. The Forum relied on clause 2.14 of Ext.B2, the General Terms and Conditions while sanctioning loans issued by the bank itself wherein it is directed that all assets charged to the bank shall be adequately insured against all attendant risks at the expenses of the borrowers and the insurance policy with bank clause shall be lodged with the bank. It is the contention of the counsel for the appellant that the same is not a mandatory direction. We fail to understand the above contention as Ext.B2 contains the direction to be complied by the bank at the time of sanctioning loans. It is issued by the head office of bank itself and the officials are not expected to deviate from the above directions. Further in such social security schemes in which the government and panchayat has provided subsidies etc and the security itself are of such a nature vulnerable to diseases etc. Compliance of the above clause is to be treated as mandatory for securing the risk of the bank as well as that of the beneficiaries. In the circumstances we find that there is no patent illegality of the order of the Forum. There is no scope for admitting the appeal. In the result the appeal is dismissed in limine.
Office will forward the copy of this order to the Forum urgently.
JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT
S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR : MEMBER
ps
