Reserved
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
U.P. Lucknow.
Appeal No.1204 of 2017
Branch Manager, Central Bank of India,
Branch, Khairabad, District, Sitapur. …Appellant.
Versus
1- Smt. Parana w/o, Dhaniram, R/o Village,
Isauli, Post, Khairabad, District, Sitapur.
2- Manager, Cholamandalam MS General
Insurance Company Ltd., 2nd Floor, Marrigold,
Shahnajaf Road, Lucknow-226001 .…Respondents.
Present:-
1- Hon’ble Sri Sushil Kumar, Member.
2- Hon’ble Sri Vikas Saxena, Member.
Sri Sharad Kumar Shukla, Ld. counsel for the appellant.
Sri M.K. Mishra, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2.
None for the respondent no.1.
Date 2.1.2023
JUDGMENT
Per Sri Sushil Kumar, Member:- This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7.6.2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Sitapur in complaint case no.71 of 2014, Smt. Parana vs. Branch Manager, Central Bank of India & anr., whereby the appellant is directed to pay Rs.28,000.00 alongwith interest equivalent to being recovered from the complainant on the loan provided to her by the bank. It further directed to pay Rs.5,000.00 as damages and Rs.5,000.00 as cost of the litigation.
As per the case of the complainant, she purchased a buffalo of black colour for Rs.28,000.00 on credit sanctioned by the Central Bank of India on 30.8.2011 which was insured by the opposite party no.2 on 14.10.2011 and tag no.NIA421400/A25935 was provided at the time of insurance. The insured buffalo died on 31.8.2012. The
(2)
complainant informed the opposite parties separately. Postmortem was conducted on 31.8.2012. None of the opposite parties cooperated in awarding the insurance claim to the complainant and finally the opposite party no.2 repudiated the claim. Therefore, consumer complaint has been filed before the ld. District Forum, Sitapur.
The opposite party no.1 contended that it is the duty of the policy holder to get the insurance and deposit the premium before the insurance company. It further contended that the loan was sanctioned through Suraj Swayam Sahaita Samooh, Isauli which was not made a party in the complaint.
The insurance company contended in its written statement that no information was given to the insurance company regarding the death of the insured buffalo and there is no record of tag in the office of the insurance company.
The ld. District Forum after appreciation of the evidence produced by the parties concluded that it was the duty of the Central Bank of India to get the insurance of the loan amount which was sanctioned to the complainant. Therefore, directed to pay the insured amount to the complainant.
This judgment and order has been challenged on the ground that Suraj Swayam Sahaita Samooh, Isauli was necessary party. There was no privity of contract with the complainant. There is no evidence that bank has refused to accept the claim application from the complainant. The bank never committed any deficiency in service. The cattle was duly insured with the insurance company.
We have heard ld. Counsel for the appellant and respondent no.2. None appeared for the respondent no.1. We have perused the impugned judgment and order.
(3)
Document no.17 reveals this fact that loan application was submitted by Suraj Swayam Sahaita Samooh, Isauli before the appellant Central Bank of India, Khairabad for purchasing the buffalo for its members. The authorized representative for filing these applications are Sunita and Ranjana. The complainant nowhere mentioned this fact in her complaint that buffalo was purchased for her through Suraj Swayam Sahaita Samooh, Isauli. As per description of document find place at no.21 and 22 that complainant Parana also the member of this group. Document no.22 clears this fact that respondent no.2 insurance company provided the insurance policy for every member of this group. The complainant’s name also mentioned at serial no.6. Therefore, it is the insurance company which is liable to pay the compensation on the death of insured buffalo not the appellant bank. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment and order passed by the ld. District Forum deserves to be amended upto this extent that the insurance company is liable to pay the insured amount to the complainant.
ORDER
Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 7.6.2017 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Sitapur in complaint case no.71 of 2014 is set aside against the appellant. The insured amount is to be paid by the insurance company to the complainant. Rest part of the judgment and order is confirmed.
The stenographer is requested to upload this order on the Website of this Commission today itself.
(4)
Certified copy of this judgment be provided to the parties as per rules.
(Vikas Saxena) (Sushil Kumar)
Member Presiding Member
Judgment dated/typed signed by us and pronounced in the open court. Consign to record.
(Vikas Saxena) (Sushil Kumar)
Member Presiding Member
Jafri, PA I
Court 2
