KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL:220/2003 JUDGMENT DATED.2..4..2008 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT SMT.VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER 1.The Chief Manager, State Bank of Travancore, Medical College Branch, Medical College Post, Trivandrum. 2.Jacob, Assistant Manager, : APPELLANTS State Bank of Travancore, -do- -do- 3.Chief Manager, State Bank of Travancore, -do- -do- (By Adv: Sri.M.Nizamudeen) V. 1.Y.Sabu, Kesava Mandiram, Ulloor, Medical College.P.O, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv: Sri.S.Reghukumar) 2.The Branch Manager, : RESPONDENTS Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Thiruvananthapuram City Branch, Thampanoor, Thiruvananthapuram. (By Adv: Sri.G.S.Kalkura) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT Appellants are opposite parties 1,3 and 4, the authorities of the State Bank of Travancore who are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- towards repair charges with 14.5% interest and also to pay Rs.25,000/- as general damages and Rs.2,500/- towards cost to the complainant whose vehicle that was purchased with the finance provided by the bank, met with an accident; when the vehicle was having no insurance coverage. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he had purchased KL-01/F/9124 Ambulance Van with the finance provided by the bank on 16..5..1995. According to him the insurance for the vehicle was being renewed by the bank regularly. On 1..4..2000 the van met with an accident and was completely damaged. It was found that the vehicle was not having insurance coverage on the date of the accident and that he had to spend substantial amounts for the repair of the vehicle. The lapse to renew the insurance coverage was on account of the negligence of the bank authorities. He has claimed altogether a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as repair charges of the vehicle and Rs.50,000/- as compensation and cost. 3. On the other hand the opposite parties/appellants have contended that there was no undertaking for the renewal of the premium by the bank and that in fact the default was on the part of the complainant. It is also mentioned that the complainant is a chronic defaulter and large amounts are due towards the loan. It is also mentioned in the version that the bank authorities have instituted OS:188/01 at Subcourt, Thiruvananthapuram for realization of the amount due towards the loan. 4. The 2nd opposite party/insurance company has disclaimed the liability as there was no insurance coverage. 5. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DW1, Exts.P1 to P6, D1 to D3 and C1. 6. Ext.C1 is the report of the commissioner who has inspected the vehicle and assessed the damages. We find that the Forum has relied on Ext.P2 reply notice sent by the complainant dated:31..8..99 which contained request for the insurance papers so that the insurance policy can be renewed. Ext.P2 has been sent in reply to the notice sent by the bank intimating that large amounts are due towards the loan and informing that further action will be taken. It is relying on the testimony of PW1 and Ext.P2 reply notice that the Forum concluded that the insurance policy is to be renewed by the bank and the bank has made it a practice to do so and therefore the bank is liable to make good the loss suffered by the complainant in the accident. 7. We find that the complainant had availed a loan for Rs.2,00,000/- hypothecating the vehicle. Ext.D2 is the agreement in this regard which is dated:16..5..1995. As per the terms of Ext.D2 the loan is to be repaid in 60 equal monthly instalments. Ext.D3 is the loan statement which would show that the first premium dated:10..8..1995, the 2nd premium dated:1..8..1996 and the 3rd premium dated:1..6..1997 have been deducted. As per Ext.D3 there is no further deductions of the insurance premium. The same would show that from August 1999 onwards the vehicle was not having policy coverage. According to the bank the instalment amounts are not paid by the complainant. The absence of regular payment is evident from D3 statement. The counsel has relied on the decision by the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Jain V. Citybank AIR (1999)SC 3119 where in the Supreme Court has emphatically held that for the failure to renew the insurance the banker cannot be saddled with the liability to pay the entire damages since the obligation to obtain the policy was on the owner of the vehicle and that by merely giving cheques for premium, owner could not be said to have discharged his duties in the manner of obtaining the policy. The above was a case instituted by the 3rd party who sustained injuries and the LRs of the occupants of the vehicle who succumbed to the injuries. As per Ext.D2 agreement, clause 8, it is specified that the borrower shall pay all fees, taxes etc with respect to the vehicle and shall also keep the vehicle in good condition and fully insured. It is also provided that the bank will be entitled to realize the amount paid towards premium in case the policy is taken by the bank. We find that the decision relied on by the counsel for the respondent ie, Bank of India Vs. Sathyaseelan and another 1 (1998) CPJ 343 and Amini Pattakal Attakoya, S.V.House, Andrott, Lakshadweep Vs. The General Manager, Syndicate Bank (1996)4 CTJ 622-CP (SCDRC), the decisions of this commission are based on different fact situations and the ratios therein has no applicability herein. Evidently the complainant was running the ambulance since August 1999 till the date of the accident that took place on 1..4..2000 without insurance coverage which itself is an offence under Sec,146 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is also to be noted that the vehicle has only been hypothecated to the bank and the complainant remains the owner. In the situation at best what can be observed is that the concerned official of the bank ought to have seen that the policy is renewed and steps taken in this regard as it is the duty of the bank also to see that the security pledged is kept in proper condition. But the above aspect of negligence would be relevant only if a 3rd party raises a claim and in case the owner is not in a position to satisfy the above claim. In between the owner and the bank the owner cannot disclaim liability or responsibility to renew the insurance policy. It has also to be noted that the RC book and insurance policy has to be kept in the vehicle itself. The owner should not have permitted the vehicle to be plied even for a single day after the expiry of insurance coverage. In the circumstances we find that for the negligence of the complainant the bank cannot be held liable and directed to pay damages to the owner who was primarily responsible for renewing the policy. In the circumstances the decision of the Forum is liable to be set aside; and we do so. The appeal is allowed. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT VALSALA SARANGADHARAN : MEMBER VL. | 
