Tripura

StateCommission

F.A 35/2014

Sri Purnenedu Bir - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager,SBI & Others - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. A.Ch.Bhowmik, Mr D.Sarkar

12 Nov 2015

ORDER

 

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

TRIPURA

 

 

APPEAL CASE No.F.A-35/2014

 

Sri Purnendu Bir,

S/O Lt. Nalini Kanta Bir,

Of Kalibari Road, P.S-Kamalpur,

Dhalai Tripura

                   ….    ….    ….    ….    Appellant.

                   Vs

1. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Kamalpur Branch, Dhalai Tripura.

 

2. The Branch Manager,

United India Insurance Co.Ltd.,

G.R.S.Tower, 1st Floor,RMS Chowmuhani,

Agartala, West Tripura.

              ….    ….    ….    ….    Respondents.

 

 

PRESENT :

       

             HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.BAIDYA,

             PRESIDENT,

             STATE COMMISSION

                          

                  MRS. SOBHANA DATTA,

             MEMBER,

               STATE COMMISSION.

 

              MR.NARAYAN CH. SHARMA,

          MEMBER

            STATE COMMISSION.

              

 

For the Appellant            :      Mr.A.C.Bhowmik,Sr.Adv.& Mr.D.Sarkar,Adv.

          For the respondent No.2 :      Mr. S.Datta Choudhury,Adv.

                                           

Date of Hearing              :     19.09.2015 & 26.09.2015.

Date of delivery of Judgment  :

J U D G M E N T

 

S.Baidya,J,

            This appeal filed on 29.11.2014 by the appellant-complainant under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act., 1986 is directed against the judgment and order dated 02.09.2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short District Forum),Dhalai District, Kamalpur in case No.2/CC/KMP/2013 whereby the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint finding no merit therein.     

2. The case of the appellant-Purnendu Bir as narrated in the memo of appeal, in brief, is that on 12.07.2005 the appellant was favoured with a loan under PMRY scheme from the respondent No.1, State Bank of India, Kamalpur Branch and accordingly, he started his business under the named “LIFE STYLE”. It is also alleged that his loan account number was changed by the O.P.No.1-bank and subsequently another fixed deposit was opened in his name as against his loan amount without his knowledge and as per proposal of the complainant, the O.P.-respondent No.2-United India Insurance Co.Ltd. insured his shop under both fire and burglary category on payment of Rs.1,333/- as insurance premium.                                                 
3. It is also alleged that on 24.02.2008 due to a fire incident occurred at Kamalpur market, his shop was completely gutted causing a loss of Rs.1,75,000/- to him and accordingly, G.D.Entry was made vide No.1334 dated 25.02.2008 and the matter of said fire incident was also informed to the O.P. No.1 vide letter dated 03.05.2010 with a request to furnish all papers to him so that he could initiate a claim from the insurance company, but the O.P. No.1 remained inactive in providing insurance benefit to the appellant.
4. It is also alleged that the appellant thereafter took up the matter with the Director of Public Grievances, Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi and also with the Secretary(FS), Department of Financial Service, Jeevandeep Building, Samsad Marg, New Delhi, but the O.Ps neither furnished him the copy of insurance policy nor maintained any insurance paper in regular motion for which he sent one advocate notice to the O.Ps on 14.05.2012, but without any result and then the complainant came up with the complaint for adequate compensation before the Ld. District Forum.
5. It is also alleged that the O.P. No.1 contested the case by filing a written objection alleging, inter alia, that the complainant was sanctioned  with a loan of Rs.71,250/- on 12.07.2005 under PMRY scheme for his business purpose and the said loan amount was divided into two categories, one was a term loan of Rs. 11,400/- and another was cash credit loan upto the limit of Rs.59,850/- with interest @ 10.25% with quarterly rest and the complainant opened the said shop “Life Style” and thereafter, also from the said loan amount insured his shop with the O.P. No.2 vide policy No.130802/46/05/00000274 and 130802/11/05/11/00000496 for the period commencing from 30.09.2005 upto 29.05.2006  and thereafter, the complainant did not renew the said policy. At the same time, the complainant was defaulted in payment of loan amount for which a proceeding under Tripura Public Demand Recovery Act was initiated by the SDM, Kamalpur against him and according to them, the alleged fire incident occurred after long lapse of said policy for which he did not get the policy benefit and as such, there was no negligence on the part of the O.Ps in this regard.
6. The O.P. No.2 admitted in their written objection about the issuance of said fire and burglary policy covering period from 30.09.2005 to 29.09.2006 and stated that any loss suffered by the complainant for any fire incident was beyond the period of insurance coverage and as such, they were not responsible for it.
7. It is also alleged that the Ld. District Forum considered the evidences adduced by the parties and after hearing the learned counsels of the parties dismissed the complaint by the impugned judgment and thereby being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 02.09.2013, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal on the grounds that the Ld. Forum did not consider the case of the appellant and without careful perusal of the evidences and other materials available in the case record has come to a wrong decision, that Ld. Forum did not consider that the State Bank of India, Kamalpur Branch paid the premium amount of the insurance of Fire and Burglary from the loan amount and kept the insurance policy with it and did not hand over the said policy papers to the appellant and intentionally kept the appellant in dark, that the Ld. Forum did not consider that at no point of time either the State Bank of India or the Insurance Company informed the appellant for renewal of the said fire and burglary policy, that the Ld. Forum did not consider that the SBI, Kamalpur branch at no point of time informed the appellant about the status of the said insurance policy, that the Ld. Forum did not consider that the SBI, Kamalpur Branch changed the number of loan account without the consent of the appellant, that the Ld. Forum did not consider that the service provided by the O.Ps is insufficient and the O.Ps are totally negligent in performing their legal obligation towards the appellant, but the Ld. Forum arbitrarily dismissed the complaint holding that the complaint has no merit at all and hence, the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.             

Points for consideration.

8.       The points for consideration are (1) whether the Ld. District Forum was proper, legal and justified in dismissing the complaint by the impugned judgment and (2) whether the judgment under challenge in this appeal should be set aside as prayed for by the appellant.     

                         Decision with Reasons.

9.       Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity.

10. At the outset, it is found necessary to mention that the respondent-O.P. No.1, Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Kamalpur Branch although contested the complaint petition in the District Forum, but did not turn up to contest this appeal, in spite of service of notice. It is also found necessary to mention that the respondent No.2, Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd. only contested the appeal.
11. Going through the pleadings of the parties, the evidences both oral and documentary, the impugned judgment, the memo of appeal and the argument advanced by the learned counsels of both sides, we find certain admitted facts. Admittedly, the appellant-complainant prayed for a loan under Prime Minister Rojgar Yojana (in short PMRY) to the respondent No.1 for starting a business of his own and accordingly, the respondent No.1 sanctioned the loan vide loan account No.01566060613 and thereafter, the complainant started his business of stationary shop namely “Life Style” in Kamalpur Bhitar Bazar. It is also admitted fact that the said loan was granted on 12.07.2005. It is also admitted fact that the said loan account number has been changed subsequently with a new account number bearing 11457151952. It is also admitted fact that for safety and security of the shop of the appellant namely “Life Style”, the same was insured with the respondent-O.P. No.2, United India Insurance Co.Ltd. vide policy No. 130802/46/05/00000274 and 130802/11/05/11/00000496 dated 30.09.2005 for both burglary B.P. policy and fire insurance policy respectively covering a period of insurance commencing from 30.09.2005 to 29.09.2006. It is also admitted fact that a total premium of Rs.1,333/- has been paid for the said insurance policies from the loan account of the appellant. It is also admitted fact that on 24.02.2008 in the midnight at about 11/11.15 p.m. a fire broke out in the Bhitar Bazar of Kamalpur market and due to said fire incident, the shop of the appellant including all stationary articles and furniture were totally burnt in to ashes along with some other shops and hotels. It is also admitted fact that the appellant-complainant got no insurance benefit for the said fire incident from the respondent No.2, United India Insurance Co.Ltd.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is an unemployed youth and intending to a start business applied for loan to the respondent-O.P. No.1, State Bank of India, Kamalpur Branch and accordingly, a loan amount of Rs.71,250/- was sanctioned, but the bank without the consent of the appellant deposited a sum of Rs.11,400/- out of the total loan amount as term loan. He also submitted that the keeping an amount of Rs.11,400/- as term loan by the bank without the consent of the appellant complainant  is totally illegal. He also submitted that the premium amount for the first time was paid by the bank from the loan account of the appellant and kept the original policy with it and never handed over the original policy to the appellant. He also submitted that in such circumstances, the appellant thought that the bank would continue to deposit the premium amount regularly for the said shop from the loan account. He also submitted that neither the bank nor the insurance company informed him to deposit the premium amount for the renewal of the said fire and burglary policies. He also submitted that as a result, the appellant was in dark that the bank did not renew the said policies of the appellant concerning his shop at the relevant time i.e. at the time of said fire incident in the shop of the complainant. He also submitted that the insurance company paid him no insurance benefit on the plea that the said fire and burglary policies were not renewed before the expiry of 29.09.2006.
13. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant being a borrower of the bank was legally entitled to get proper service from the bank towards renewal of the insurance policies concerning his shop, but for the fault of the bank, the insurance for the said shop of the appellant was not renewed. He also submitted that it is also the duty of the insurance company to inform the insured for renewal of the insurance policies, but for the negligent and deficient act of the insurance company, the insurance of the shop of the appellant was not renewed. He also submitted that as the bank and the insurance company were deficient and negligent in providing proper service to the appellant-complainant, they are legally liable to make compensation to the appellant.
14. The learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that as the original insurance policy was not handed over to the appellant-complainant at no point of time by the respondent No.2 or by the respondent No.1, it was presumed by the appellant that the fire and burglary insurances in respect of his shop were renewed from time to time and regularly, but the bank and the insurance company kept the appellant in dark in this regard and as a result, the complainant-appellant could not know that fire and burglary insurances required to be renewed by him from year to year.
15. The learned counsel for the appellant lastly submitted that the appellant through RTI application came to know from the United India Insurance Co.Ltd. that only the Policy No.130802/46/05/04/00000274 for the period from 30.09.2005 to 29.09.2006 were made for burglary purpose and no other policy was made covering the fire incident, although the bank deducted an amount of Rs.1,333/- from the loan amount sanctioned to the complainant. He also submitted that the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate the fact and circumstance of the case and arrived at the wrong conclusion and passed the impugned judgment holding that the complaint is devoid of any merit and as such, it is not sustainable in the eye of law and should be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.  
16. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, United India Insurance Co.Ltd. submitted that only for one year covering a period from 30.09.2005 to 29.09.2006 was made insuring the business of the appellant named “Life Style” regarding the fire and burglary insurances. He also submitted that the fire incident took place on 24.02.2008, but at that time the shop of the complainant was not within the period of insurance coverage. He also submitted that before the expiry of 29.09.2006 the fire and burglary insurances required to be insured by the appellant. He also submitted that unless and until the insurance is renewed on payment of insurance premium before the expiry of the due date, the insurance coverage does not extend for rendering any insurance benefit to any person. He also submitted that after the fire and burglary insurances the complainant as insured got the insurance policies from the respondent No.2 and it was his duty to get the fire and burglary insurances renewed year to year regularly before the expiry of the due date, but the appellant miserably failed to get his insurances renewed before the expiry of 29.09.2006. He also submitted that as the fire incident taken place on 24.02.2008 was not covered by the fire insurance, the insurance company was under no obligation to pay any insurance benefit to the appellant and as such, there occurred no question of deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No.2.  
17. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further submitted that the appellant-complainant himself was at fault and negligent in not taking any step for the renewal of the insurances concerning his shop. He also submitted that the reason for non-renewal of the said insurance policies was best known to the complainant-appellant, but the appellant himself being a defaulter cannot point out his finger towards other including the respondent No.2. He also submitted that it is not the case of the appellant that he paid insurance premium for renewal of the policies, but the insurance company did not renew it. He also submitted that in that circumstances, no deficiency in service and negligence can be attributed towards the respondent No.2.
18. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that in the instant case, the complainant-appellant was the insured and the respondent No.2 was the insurer concerning the fire and burglary insurances covering his shop located at Bhitar bazar, Kamalpur market. He also submitted that as per usual norms, the insured will pay/deposit the premium amount and the insurer after accepting the same will issue insurance policy in favour of the insured. He also submitted that as the complainant is a borrower and his loan account is maintained in the SBI, Kamalpur Branch, the complainant as borrower may request the bank to remit the premium amount to the insurance company for the renewal of the insurance policies of the said borrower. He also submitted that in the instant case, the appellant produced nothing to show that he made any such request to the bank to remit the premium amount for the renewal of the fire and burglary insurances. He also submitted that the loan was sanctioned on 12.07.2005 in favour of the appellant by the SBI, Kamalpur Branch for an amount of Rs.71,250/-. The appellant produced no document to show that on and from 01.01.2006 he made any attempt to make repayment of the loan granted by the bank.
19. The learned counsel also submitted that the fire incident took place on 24.02.2008, whereas the complainant stopped himself in making any repayment of his loan amount to the bank on and from 01.01.2006. He also submitted that this conduct of the complainant makes it clear that the complainant remained silent for more than one year four months. He also submitted that the fire incident took place on 24.02.2008 whereas, the complainant all on a sudden woke up from the sleep and made a request to the Branch manager of SBI, Kamalpur Branch on 03.05.2010 i.e. after more than two years demanding papers for the initiation of getting insurance benefit from the insurance company. He also submitted that the bank for the recovery of its dues initiated a proceeding under the Public Demand Recovery Act against the appellant and only at that time, the complainant woke up from the sleep and making a false allegation knocked the door of the Ld. District forum and lodged the complaint. He also submitted that the appellant-complainant, in spite of getting the original fire and burglary insurances, did not take any step to get the same renewed year to year concerning his shop and as such, having no insurance coverage the appellant is not entitled to get any insurance benefit for any loss sustained by him due to the said fire incident on 24.02.2008 concerning his shop.
20. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also submitted that the Ld. District Forum meticulously considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case and rightly arrived at the conclusion and finding no merit in the complaint dismissed it which being proper, legal and justified should be affirmed and the appeal should be dismissed.
21. Going through the deposition of the complainant-Purnendu Bir, we find that the complainant as P.W.1 admitted in his cross-examination that the policy duration was from 30.09.2005 to 29.09.2006. He also admitted in his cross-examination that he received the original insurance policy from O.P.No-2(respondent No.2). He also admitted that he supplied a photocopy of the said insurance policy to the bank. He also admitted that the bank authority did not take any service charge from him regarding disbursement of the loan. He also admitted in cross-examination that he was totally defaulter for making payment of loan for which the bank initiated a proceeding against him under Public Demand Recovery Act. From the above admission of the P.W.1, we find that the allegation of the complainant that he was not handed over the original insurance policy by the respondent-O.P. No.2 is not correct. The complainant was the insured. It is his legal obligation to take step for renewal of the insurance policy before the expiry of the due date, if he is at all interested to get it renewed. In the instant case, we find that the complainant was very much negligent and indifferent in not taking any step to get the insurance renewed by way of making payment of insurance premium to the insurance company either by himself or by making any instruction to the bank to remit the renewal premium amount to the respondent No.2, insurance company.
22. It is the allegation of the complainant that through RTI he only got information in respect of burglary BP policy and he could not get any trace regarding fire insurance, but the complainant nowhere pleaded in the complaint petition as such. It appears that such plea has been taken by the complainant only in the memo of appeal, but we find no truth in such allegation because a copy of the fire insurance i.e. Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy bearing No.130802/11/05/11/00000496 has been produced by the O.P.-respondent No.1 in the District Forum.
23. From the composite loan agreement, it transpires that the appellant was granted as a borrower a composite loan of Rs.71,250/- and that loan was sanctioned on 12.07.2005 on the basis of an application of the complainant dated 12.10.2004. It also appears that the said loan amount consisted of a term loan of Rs.11,400/-  and on demand cash credit loan upto a limit of Rs.59,850/-. It further appears that as per terms and conditions, the borrower-complainant shall pay interest on the composite loan @ 10.25%. It was also agreed upon by the complainant that he shall make repayment the term loan component of Rs.11,400/- in equal monthly instalment of Rs.317/- plus interest, the first of which will be payable on six months after disbursement. Going through the composite loan agreement, it transpires that as per terms and conditions, the bank is legally entitled to keep a term loan component of Rs.11,400/- and in that case, no further consent in writing from the complainant was at all necessary for keeping the said amount as term loan. So, the allegation of the complainant that the bank without his consent kept Rs.11,400/- as term loan out of the total loan amount is found not correct. It is needless to say that the said composite loan agreement has been signed by the complainant-Purnendu Bir on 12.07.2005 in each page of the agreement knowingfully well all the terms and conditions contained therein.
24. Another allegation of the complainant is that the bank without his consent changed the loan account number. According to us, the change of the loan account number by the bank is made in course of official process and none is affected by such change of the account number. We are not unmindful that at the relevant time all the account numbers of the SBI were initiated with zero number, but subsequently, this account number started to run with the number ‘1’ instead of zero. So, concerning the change of loan account number, we find nothing to draw any advance presumption against the bank. We also find that the complainant has not been affected by such change of loan account number. Therefore, the allegation of the complainant concerning the change of loan account number would not come in any way in aid of the complainant to succeed in the appeal.
25. The D.W.1-Sri Jadu Gopal Sarkar, Branch Manager of SBI, Kamalpur Branch stated in his cross-examination that the borrower generally opts to purchase the insurance policy against his property and in case, customer requests them, they debit the premium amount of the insurance policy from the account of the customer and thereafter, they arrange for purchase of the insurance policy. It has already been mentioned that the complainant produced no document showing that he ever instructed the respondent No.1 to make payment of the renewal premium amount for the renewal of the insurance policy. Furthermore, it has been established that the complainant himself received the original insurance policy from the respondent No.2 So, the responsibility to make payment for the renewal of the insurance policy lies with the complainant himself, but the complainant kept himself mum and took no step for renewal of the insurance policy. In that case, it can be said without any hesitation that the complainant himself is deficient and negligent in this regard and he cannot blame either the bank or the insurance company for non-renewal of the fire and burglary policies concerning his shop. The non-making of any payment since 01.01.2006 towards the repayment of the loan to the bank by the complainant has made it clear as to how far the complainant was deficient and negligent in this regard.
26.  The allegation has been made by the complainant that through RTI he got necessary information regarding burglary policy, but he could not get any trace regarding fire incident. We find that there is no truth in such allegation. Furthermore, the complainant produced no document to show actually what information was sought for by him and actually what information he received from the insurance company through the alleged RTI application.
27. Admittedly, a proceeding under the Public Demand Recovery Act was initiated by the bank against the complainant-appellant for recovery of the dues. Although, we did not get any material regarding the date of initiation of the said proceeding, but it is clear that the said proceeding was initiated by the bank after the said fire incident occurred on 24.02.2008. It is also a fact that the complainant did not make any repayment of the said loan amount to the bank since 01.01.2006. The entire facts and circumstances have led us to believe and hold that the complainant made the application to the bank for supplying papers only when bank initiated recovery proceeding against the complainant. Be that as it may, we are not on that point. We have to consider whether the respondents were at all deficient and negligent in providing service to the complainant or not. Going through the entire materials, we find that no deficiency in service and negligence can be attributed to the respondent-O.Ps. Going through the impugned judgment, we find that the Ld. District Forum elaborately considered all aspects of the case and rightly arrived at the conclusion and accordingly, dismissed the complaint finding no merit therein and as such, the impugned judgment calls for no interference by this Commission and therefore, it is liable to be affirmed and the appeal is also liable to be dismissed having no merit at all.
28. In the result, the appeal fails. The impugned judgment dated 02.09.2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Dhalai District, Kamalpur in case No.2/CC/KMP/2013 is hereby affirmed. There is no order as to costs.                  

 

 

 

 

            MEMBER                             MEMBER                          PRESIDENT

                 State Commission                   State Commission               State Commission

                         Tripura                                    Tripura                                Tripura