AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”), by Branch Manager, Sawai Madhopur Kendriya Sahakari Bank Ltd., Petitioner herein, is against the Order dated 13.06.2011, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Jaipur (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 1095/2008. By the impugned Order, while upholding the Order dated 25.04.2008 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Karauli (for short “the District Commission”) in Complaint No. 127/07 whereby the Petitioner Bank was directed to pay the insured amount along with interest on such rate which was applicable from time to time on the loan amount from the date of the accident till the date of payment along with ₹1,000/- as expenses, the State Commission dismissed the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner Bank.
Succinctly put, the facts giving rise to the present Revision Petition, as culled out from the Complaint, are that on 29.12.1995 Complainant/Respondent No.1 herein, purchased a motorcycle bearing Registration No. RJ-25M 6955 for a sum of ₹30,553/- out of which he paid ₹15,553/- from his personal account and for the remaining balance, he obtained a Consumer Credit Loan of ₹15,000/- from Sawai Madhopur Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. branched at Sapotra (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioner Bank). The Petitioner Bank made the payment through DD No 79694 dated 30.12.1995. Unfortunately, on 20.05.1998, the said motorcycle caught on fire due to sparking in high voltage wires. The United India Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company) rejected claim on the ground that the vehicle was not insured at the time of incident. It is the case of the Complainant that the Bank was responsible for renewal of the Insurance Policy by depositing the premium amount which the Petitioner Bank had deducted from his account. Factually, the Insurance Policy expired on 05.05.1998. The Insurance Policy was not renewed from 05.05.1998 till 19.05.1998.
Being aggrieved, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint being Complaint No 171/1998 before the District Forum, interalia, alleging deficiency in service by the Petitioner Bank for delay caused in renewing insurance of the subject motor-vehicle. However, the District Forum vide Order dated 25.01.2002 dismissed the Complaint. On Appeal being preferred by the Complainant before the State Commission, vide Order dated 01.05.2007 the State Commission remanded the matter back to be considered again through fresh hearing.
Upon notice, the Complaint was contested by the Opposite Parties, specifically, the Opposite Party No.1 Bank herein relies on clause 12 of the Deed of Hypothecation dated 29.12.1995, for ready reference, same is reproduced as under:
“12. The Borrower agrees and covenants to have the schedule mentioned property insured for the in full value against the risk of fire, theft, burglary, etc. The insurance policy should be in the name of the loanee and the Bank and lodged with the Bank. Premium of the insurance will either be debited to the deposit account of the Borrower or he will deposit in the bank.”
Therefore, in view of clause 12 (supra), it is the stand of the Petitioner Bank that it was the responsibility of the Complainant, to have the motor vehicle insured at all points of time. The Petitioner alleged that the only duty of the Petitioner Bank was to debit the premium payable for the insurance policy to the loan account of Complainant, and the Complainant was required to deposit the amount of premium with the Petitioner Bank. The Petitioner further contends that the insurance for the motor vehicle was valid for 06.05.1997 to 05.05.1998, thereafter the Complainant never came to the Petitioner Bank to deposit the premium amount or to request the Petitioner Bank to debit the premium amount to his own account and forward the same to the Respondent No. 2 Insurance Company.
On appraisal of the evidence adduced before it and after due consideration of clause 12, the District Forum vide Order dated 25.04.2008 allowed the Complaint holding that the Opposite Party No. 1/Petitioner Bank, was liable for deficiency in service on the ground that after perusal of details of the account of the Complainant, it was evident that the Petitioner Bank had withdrawn ₹376/- on 30.01.1996, 05.04.1997, 18.04.1997, 19.04.1997 and 19.05.1998 for the insurance premium from accounts held by the Complainant and credited to his name and it was the Petitioner Bank who was responsible for depositing the premium, which it avoided and committed deficiency in service.
Being aggrieved, Opposite Party No. 1/Petitioner Bank preferred an Appeal before the State Commission, relying on clause 12 of the Deed of Hypothecation dated 29.12.1995 and that the total premium of ₹1015/- for the vehicle was paid to Respondent No.2, i.e., United India Assurance Company Ltd vide DD Nos. 0011368 and 0011369 dated 19.05.1998 and the same were received by the agent of the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company, and therefore, the liability, if any, should have been fastened on the Insurance Company/Respondent No.2. However, the State Commission vide Impugned Order dated 13.06.2011 dismissed the Appeal by affirming the findings recorded by the District Forum and upheld the Order passed by the District Forum.
Aggrieved by the Order dated 13.06.2011 passed by the State Commission, Sawai Madhopur Kendriya Sahakari Bank Ltd. has filed the present Revision Petition. It is relevant to note that notice was duly served on all parties, pertinently, Respondent no 2 & 3 (United India Insurance Company Ltd and Rajasthan Vidyut Vibhag) failed to appear despite service, therefore, vide Order dated 19.10.2015, Respondent no 2 & 3 were proceeded ex-parte.
We have heard Mr. Uday Gupta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner Bank and Mr. Kishore Rawat for the Respondent No.2 Insurance Company, perused the Orders passed by the Fora below, the Complaint, the Written Statement and also other documents on record.
Mr. Uday Gupta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Bank has placed reliance on Clause 12 of the Deed of Hypothecation dated 29.12.1995 which states that the borrower i.e., the Complainant was duty bound to have the schedule mentioned property insured in full value against the risk of fire, theft, burglary, etc. Further the Premium of the insurance was either supposed to be debited to the deposit account of the Complainant or the Complainant was supposed to deposit the premium in the bank. Therefore, the Petitioner has vehemently argued that it was not responsible for getting the vehicle insured and since the insurance policy lapsed on 05.05.1998, the Complainant was duty bound to renew the same before 05.05.1998 or immediately thereafter.
Mr. Kishore Rawat, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 2/United India Insurance Company Ltd., supported the Orders passed by the District and State Commission, as according to him, the Orders are well-reasoned Orders which are based on a correct and rightful appreciation of evidence and material on record and do not call for any interference.
From the perusal of the material available on record and having given thoughtful consideration to the pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the Parties, we are of the considered opinion that the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner are not acceptable for the simple reason that there is concurrent finding of the fact that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner Bank in not getting renewed Insurance Policy by depositing the premium amount which it had withdrawn on 30.01.1996, 05.04.1997, 18.04.1997, 19.04.1997 and 19.05.1998 towards the insurance premium from accounts held by the Complainant.
The State Commission vide its well-reasoned Order dated 13.06.2011 has rightly affirmed the findings recorded by the District Forum that there was deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner Bank in not getting renewed the Insurance Policy despite having withdrawn the premium amount from the account of the Complainant. While passing the Impugned Order dated 13.06.2011, the State Commission had considered all the material evidence on record and we do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission.
It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [Civil Appeal No. 432 / 2022 Order dated 21.01.2022] that the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Order passed by the State Commission in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission. For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ [supra] is reproduced as under:-
“9. It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested, or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”
Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rajiv Shukla vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd. and Ors. [MANU/SC/1120/2022 : (2022) 9 SCC 31] while affirming its earlier view taken in the case of “Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company – (2011) 11 SCC 269” that the National Commission has no right to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts of the Fora below in its Revisional Jurisdiction, has held as under:-
“7.1 At this stage, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence on record the District Forum as well as the State Commission concurrently found that the car delivered was used car. Such findings of facts recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission were not required to be interfered by the National Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. It is required to be noted that while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission was exercising the revisional jurisdiction vested under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act.”
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in afore-noted Judgments, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Order passed by the State Commission and the Impugned Order dated 13.06.2011 passed by the State Commission is upheld. Consequently, the present Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no Order as to costs.