Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. This appeal is filed U/S-15 of erstwhile Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.
3. The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant is a Cash Credit Account holder under the OP since 1985. There is already agreement for the cash credit facility between the complainant and the OP-Bank. It is alleged inter-alia that the OP-Bank has not insured the stock of shop of the complainant by debiting the premium from his account as per practice and procedure. It is submitted that the insurance premiums against cash credit limit of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid to the Op-Bank which is valid upto 17.07.2005. In the year 2005, the cash credit limit was enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- and a fresh agreement was executed on 19.09.2007. But the OP-Bank neither insured the goods in the shop nor intimated complainant about the insurance of stocks. While matter stood thus, on 08.05.2008 night fire, the shop of the complainant caught fire by causing damages to the shop and the stock amounting to Rs.5,35,000/-. Thereafter the matter was informed to the Op to lodge claim before the insurance company. On 05.01.2009 the OP-Bank informed the complainant that as no premium was paid the complainant was not entitled to compensation. The complainant alleging same deficiency in service, filed the complaint case.
4. The OP filed joint written version admitting that the cash credit limit was enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/-. Thereafter it was reduced to Rs..3,50,000/- and again it was enhanced to Rs.7,00,000/- by taking security of landed properties of the complainant. The OP pleaded that the complainant was to insure the stock of his shop. When the complainant advises the bank to do the insurance on his behalf and to deduct the premium from his account, then the OP-Bank can insurance the stock. Even before enhancement of cash credit limit of Rs.7,00,000/- in his letter on dt.31.03.2008 informed that loan would be allowed subject to insurance covering all the risk at the cost of the complainant and the responsibility. But the complainant in negligent in depositing the premium inspite of advice of OP-Bank to cause the insurance to the stocks of the shop, but the complainant did not listen to their advise. As such the complainant was not paid any insurance compensation. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.
5. After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-
Xxxx xxxx xxxx
“ The complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OP but in the circumstances without cost.”
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by dismissing the complaint without going through the complaint petition and other materials on record. According to him it is the practice and procedure for the OP-Bank to debit the premium from the account of the complainant for insuring the stock in question. The complainant is not duty bound to insure the stock. Learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind to the fact and law involved in this case. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.
7. Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.
8. It is admitted fact that on 18.07.2008 there was sanction of rs.7,00,000/- as cash credit facility allowed for the complainant. It is for the complainant to prove his case. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the OP is to follow the practice and procedure to insure the property under risk. He has not produced any law in this regard. On the otherhand the OP has taken plea that time and again the complainant was asked to insure the property. In support of this, learned counsel for the appellant submitted the Annexure- C which related to 18.07.2008 and 31.03.2008. From these letters, it is revealed that they have advised to the complainant to insure the stock. So, the OP have proved their plea.
9. In view of above submission and materials on record, we are of the view that the OP has asked the complainant to pay the premium on time but learned counsel for the appellant submits that It is the duty of the financer to get the property insured. There is no any evidence adduced to prove his case.
10. In view of above submission, we are of the view that there is no any merit in the appeal and the impugned order is confirmed and the appeal stands dismissed. No cost.
Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or webtsite of this Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.
DFR be sent back forthwith.
