State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ajit Fabrics vs Union Bank Of India on 13 May, 2024
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA Date of Institution: 07.04.2017 Date of final hearing: 26.04.2024 Date of pronouncement: 13.05.2024 First Appeal No.485 of 2017 2. Ajit Kumar S/o Sh.Tek Chand, proprietor M/s Ajit Fabrics, situated at Katcha Kala Aamb road, Babail road, Panipat, Tehsil and Distt. Panipat......Appellants Union Bank of India, SSI Branch, GT Road, Panipat through its Chief Manager......Respondent CORAM: Mr.Naresh Katyal, Judicial Member
Mrs. Manjula Sharma, Member Argued by:- Mr.Sandeep Singh Ghangas, Adv.,for Appellants.
Mr. Bhavesh Aggarwal, Advocate for respondent.
ORDER NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Delay of 06 days in filing of this appeal stand condoned for the reasons stated in the application.
2. Challenge in this Appeal No.485 of 2017 of complainants/appellants has been invited to legality of order dated 30.01.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panipat(In short "District Consumer Commission") in Complaint No.254 of 2014.Complainants' complaint has been dismissed.
3. Factual matrix:M/s Ajit Fabrics is a firm and Ajit Kumar is its proprietor. It has an account with Union Bank of India bearing No.502505010131105 and it had obtained CC limit of Rs.4,00,000/-. It had taken insurance policy for its stocks for last 20 years regularly and was taking insurance for machinery installed in premises for last three and half years, including insurance of stock and building. Bank used to deduct insurance premium from complainants' account. Unfortunately, fire broke in premises of complainants in intervening night of 22.06.2014 around 5.00 a.m. and all machinery, stock etc. were burnt, including damage to building. Fire brigade was reported on same day vide No.303 dated 22.06.2014. Police was also informed vide DDR No.19 and 20 dated 23.06.2014 with Police Post, Baljeet Nagar, Panipat. OP was also intimated in that respect. All four shuttle less looms installed in shed were gutted badly in said fire. Electric fittings of whole machinery shed were burnt and damaged. Raw material lying near machine, stock in process on machine, finished goods consisting of Carpet (Polyester yarn and Sodi yarn) were burnt and badly damaged. As per plea, complainants had taken loan from bank to tune of Rs.17,50,000/-, though price of machinery was around Rs.25.00 lacs. It was incumbent upon Bank/OP to take insurance policy from insurance company in respect of stock, building and machinery. Bank/OP committed big mistake and went for insurance of stock only and that too on wrong address (Shop No.7, SD Road, Panipat). It is pleaded that OP/Bank assured complainants that: there would be no problem, in case any claim is made. In said fire, total value of stock burnt was of Rs.17,82,000/- besides damage to building. It is pleaded that by any stretch of imagination, it would not be anticipated by complainants that: OP-Bank had not taken insurance policy for machinery this year (i.e.relevant year when fire took place). Complainants requested OP/Bank to reimburse them to the extent of loss suffered qua machinery, but OP/Bank finally refused on 01.09.2014 to oblige complainants. They filed complaint for issuance of directions to OP/Bank for payment of claim in respect of loss suffered qua machinery for Rs.17,82,000/-.
4. Upon notice, OP-Bank in its defence has pleaded that:complainants have not come to forum with clean hands; complainants have no cause of action; complaint is not maintainable and complainants are estopped by their own act and conduct for filing complaint. Forum has no jurisdiction. On merits, it is admitted that complainants are having CC Limits and CC Account with it (Bank). It is admitted that complainants had been taking insurance for stock, building for last 20 years regularly and taking insurance of machinery installed in premises of complainants for last three and half years. Bank had never done any kind of insurance policy of firm. As per plea,question of taking insurance policy by Bank and responsibility by Bank to take insurance policy for firm is wrong. It is admitted that complainants took loan from Bank to the tune of Rs.17,50,000/-. It is pleaded as wrong that Bank has ever assured that mistake was committed by it for taking policy on wrong address and Bank ever realized its mistake. It is also denied that complainants suffered loss to the tune of Rs.17,82,000/- on account of loss of machinery installed in its premises and Rs.1.00 lacs towards damage to building. On these pleas, dismissal of complaint has been prayed.
5. Parties to this led their respective evidence (oral as well as, documentary). On analysing it; learned District Consumer Commission vide order dated 30.01.2017 has dismissed the complaint. Unsuccessful but still unfazed complainants have filed instant appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for all the parties at length on 26.04.2024 and examined record with their able assistance.
7. Learned counsel for appellants/complainants has contended that OP-Bank has admitted its mistake to insurer's investigator when said investigator had investigated regarding extent of loss suffered by complainants in relation to fire resulted on intervening night of 22.06.2014 in complainants' premises situated at Katcha Kala Aamb Road, Babail Road, Panipat as complainants had obtained insurance policy from New India Assurance Company Ltd., which was valid from 14.05.2014 to 13.05.2015. It is urged that OP-bank cannot be allowed to turn around, to the peril of complainants by declining to reimburse the loss suffered by complainants of Rs.17,82,000/- on account of burning/damage caused to machinery, because of its mistake. Further, it is contended that: if machinery damaged due to fire was not covered under insurance policy, then also there was no fault of complainants because complainants used to obtain insurance policies for previous years, as well as, for the current year, through the courtesy of OP-Bank as complainants had taken loan from bank.
8. Refuting the contentions, learned counsel for OP-Bank has contended that Bank has no business to obtain insurance policy for complainants' firm and rightly it has no liability for any loss suffered by complainants for damage to machinery of the whopping amount of Rs.17,82,000/- as alleged.
9. May be, complainants have been taking insurance policies from New India Assurance Company Ltd. previously also, yet all these policies have no relevancy at legal pedestal, because admittedly, no unfortunate incident of fire etc. had happened during currency periods of those policies. Fire at premises (Katcha Kala Aamb Road, Babail Road, Panipat) of complainants had taken place on 22.06.2014. Ex.C-27 is the insurance policy which is relevant, as said fire had resulted during its currency period of 14.05.2014 to 13.05.2015. Descriptions of items covered under insurance were specifically mentioned in policy itself. The insured place in policy Ex.C-27 has been mentioned as Shop No.7, S.D. Market, Panipat and concededly, there had been no incident of fire at this specified insured place. Fire allegedly took place at premises viz: Katcha Kala Aamb Road, Babail Road, Panipat, which was not the insured place in terms of insurance policy Ex.C-27. Contention on behalf of appellants that it was obligatory on the part of OP-bank to get machinery insured in policy Ex.C-27 is wholly misconceived and bereft of credence. It is for obvious reason that, it is none of the business of OP-Bank to get insurance policy for complainant No.1-firm and there would be no contractual obligation confronting OP-Bank to reimburse complainants with any loss allegedly suffered to machinery on account of fire. The duty in this regard is/was upon complainants themselves. To unjustly blame OP-Bank on unfounded reasons would be beyond the realm of acceptability at legal pedestal. The contention that Branch Manager of OP-Bank had admitted its fallacy and mistake appearing in insurance policy before the investigator of insurer has no credible base at all. Such like contention has palpably been raised for name-sake and stood repelled at the very outset.
10. As a sequel to above discussion, this Commission does not see any infirmity, illegality and perversity in the impugned order dated 30.01.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission- Panipat. It is maintained and affirmed. Present appeal being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.
12. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties.
13. File be consigned to record room.
Date of pronouncement: 13thMay, 2024 Manjula Sharma Naresh Katyal Member Judicial Member Addl. Bench-I Addl. Bench-I