Nagaland

StateCommission

A/3/2014

State Bank of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Smti. Y. Lucy Kikon - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. B. Devnath

17 Nov 2016

ORDER

President, Mr. Justice BD Agarwal, Rtd. Judge

Member, Mr. Phushika Awomi

Member, Miss, Eyingbeni. Shitiri

 

 

JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)

Dated: 17/11/2016

 

                     This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 02/07/2014 passed by the learned Consumer Forum, Dimapur in CFD case No. 4/2013. By this impugned judgment the forum has granted compensation of Rs. 3,80,000/- with interest for the alleged theft of carpentry materials from the furniture shop of the claimant. 

                   Heard Shri. B. Devnath learned counsel for the appellant-Bank. Also heard Shri. P. lotha, learned counsel for the respondent-complainant and also perused the impugned Judgment and the documents filed by the claimant in the district forum. It may be mentioned here that no counter was filed by the state bank in the consumer forum. In this way the impugned judgment is virtually an ex-parte one.

                   The gist of the case is that the respondent/ complainant was sanctioned term loan of Rs 34000/- and case credit of Rs 2,47,000/- in the name of M/s Dimapur Carpentry Centre by the Bank. The loan was sanctioned on 10/05/2002.

                   After the sanction of loan the Bank insured the furniture and carpentry products and its machineries and tools through the Oriental Insurance Company on 12/07/ 2002. It was a Standard policy, Shri P. Lotha, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that a separate petition was filed to the Bank on 07/06/2002 to cover theft of goods also in the policy. However, the Bank ignore the requested “theft” was not included in the insurance policy.      

The record does not reveal that any former claim was lodged before that Bank seeking compensation for the loss suffered by the claimant due to theft. During the course of the argument Shri. P. Lotha, submitted that the bank officer intentionally did not cover theft in the insurance policy. However, the learned counsel of the complainant has admitted that the insurance policy does not cover theft of property. According to learned counsel, the Bank officer has taken a plea that that written request to include theft in the policy was received only on 16/07/2002 by forging the date of application. In our considered opinion the state commission cannot examine the allegation of forgery in appeal.

                   The other special feature of the case is that though the alleged theft took place in the year 2002, the complaint was filed in the consumer forum only in the year 2013. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the delay was caused due to non furnishing of the copy of insurance copy by the Bank. In our considered opinion an insured could have waited for few weeks or few months to approach the higher authority for getting a copy of insurance policy or for approaching the consumer forum alleging deficiency in service. However, in the instant case the complaint was filed after more than ten years. Strangely, the district forum has grossly overlooked this aspect and there is no discussion regarding the limitation issue.

                   It is also an admitted the fact that the Bank had filed a money suit in the civil court as back as in the year 2008 for recovery of loan amount. For certain reasons, the suit was dismissed on 12/06/2012. According to the learned counsel for the Bank the suit was dismissed on the ground of limitations. Be that as it may the civil court had allowed the defendant in the civil suit i.e. the complainant to file a civil suit if he had any grievance against the Bank. Despite this liberty given by the civil court no counter suit was filed by the complainant. On the other hand the consumer case was filed after more than one year of the disposal of the money suit of the Bank. This appears to be a case of counter blast to the money suit of the Bank.

                   Hence, we find no difficulty to hold that the impugned judgment is unsustainable in law and also on facts.

                   In the result the appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside.

                   Return the LCR record.