Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/630/2015

Alwar Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd.through Secretary - Complainant(s)

Versus

Ramswaroop Pilwal s/o Lae Bhagwan Sahai - Opp.Party(s)

Indres Sharma

25 Feb 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 630 /2015

 

Alwar Cooperative Land Development Bank Ltd. Head office Shivaji Park,Vijay Mandir,Alwar through Secretary & ors.

 

Vs.

 

Ramswaroop Pilwal & Ramesh chand Pilwal both r/o Dyodhan, Tehsil Kathumar Distt. Alwar presently B 39 Ashok vihar, Sec.no. 11, Malviya Nagar Extension,Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 25.2.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Nisha Gupta- President

Mr. Kailash Soyal -Member

 

Mr. Indresh Sharma counsel for the appellants

Mr.Vizzy Agarwal counsel for the respondents

2

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION ( PER HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE NISHA GUPTA,PRESIDENT):

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned DCF, Jaipur 2^nd dated 21.4.2015.

 

The short facts of the case are that father of the complainant Late Sh. Bhagwan Sahai mortgaged his agriculture land with the appellants and loan of Rs. 3,75,000/- was taken for purchasing the tractor. The tractor was purchased and insured with the Life Insurance Corporation. Thereafter the appellants entered into a memorandum of understanding with the LIC of India to the effect that the life of all those who were party to the loan taken from the appellants shall be covered under the scheme and in the event of death of any of the borrowers, the LIC shall re-pay the entire amount of the loan left over. It was further contended in the complaint that Bhagwan Sahai paid all the due installments on time and next installment was due on 31.3.2010 but Bhagwan Sahai died on 11.3.2010. Information of death was given to the appellants and it has been requested for making payment towards the death claim under the Cooperative Life Insurance Policy. The appellants have not made the payment and it was informed that

3

 

premium was not paid to the LIC hence, Bhagwan Sahai could not be insured under the Cooperative Live Insurance Policy. The court below has held that it was deficiency on the part of the appellants and claim has been decided in favour of the deceased respondent.

 

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment.

 

The contention of the appellants is that no claim forms have been submitted on time. Bhagwan Sahai was defaulter and there was breach of policy condition . Only Alwar court has jurisdiction as loan has been taken from Alwar branch and admittedly Bhagwan Sahai died on 11.3.2010 but this complaint has not been filed within two years under period of limitation. No premium was deposited by Bhagwan Sahai for the year 2010 hence, the claim should have been rejected.

 

Per contra the contention of the respondent is that no specific reply has been filed by the appellants before the court below. Memorandum of understanding was executed in Jaipur. In deposit of second installment the appellants has committed default and they have tried to deposit the premium amount after

4

 

the death of Bhagwan Sahai which was misdeed on the part of the appellants and charge sheet were issued to various employees of the appellants. Appellant is still charging the interest hence, it is continuous cause of action and not barred by limitation and the court below was having jurisdiction. Hence, there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

 

The judgment of the court below clearly speaks that nothing has been brought on record to show that why premium has not been deposited with the Life Insurance Corporation inspite of the fact that it was taken from the borrowers. The complainant came with a straight case that they have deposited the installment but premium has not been deposited with the LIC and hence, insured amount could not be paid to the respondents. The court below was of considered opinion that due to negligence of the appellants premium could not be deposited with the LIC and this was deficiency in service on the part of the appellants and no fault can be found in the findings of the court below.

 

The contention of the appellants is that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain such disputes as it was dispute under the

 

5

 

Cooperative Societies Act but section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act clearly provides that the provision of this act are in addition to any provisions in any other law. Hence, this court has jurisdiction to entertain such disputes.

 

Further the contention of the appellants is that loan was taken from the Alwar branch hence, the Jaipur court was not having jurisdiction and reliance has been placed on a judgment of M/s. Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Co. Civil Appeal No. 1560/2004 decided on 20.10.2009 where the word ' branch office' has been explained. There is no dispute about the preposition but here in the present case Memorandum of understanding has entered between the parties at Jaipur. Meaning thereby that basis of the claim has been entered in Jaipur and Bhagwan Sahai,deceased was the beneficiary of the same. Hence, Jaipur court was having jurisdiction.

 

The other contention of the appellants is that complaint was barred by limitation as the deceased has died on 11.3.2010 whereas complaint has not been filed within two years of his death and reliance has been placed on the judgment of State

 

 

6

 

Bank of india Vs. B.S.Agricultural Civil Appeal No. 2067/2002 decided on 20.3.2009 and Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co., Civil Appeal No. 4962/2002 decided on 10.7.2009 where law of limitation has been explained.

 

There is no dispute about the principles laid down in the above citations but here in the present case the specific case of the respondent is that still appellants are charging interest on the installments hence, it is a continuing cause of action and recurring action on the part of the appellants. In view of the above, the objection as regard to the limitation is not sustainable.

 

The court below has considered the rival contentions and rightly allowed the claim. There is no merit in this appeal and liable to be rejected.

 

 

(Kailash Soyal) (Nisha Gupta )

Member President

 

 

nm