State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
State Bank Of India vs Sachin Sharma & Anr. on 3 September, 2013
H.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SHIMLA.
First Appeal No: 150/2013.
Date of Decision: 03.09.2013.
..............................................................................................
State Bank of India,
Through its Branch Manager,
BBMB Colony, Tehsil Sundernagar,
District Mandi, H.P.
... Appellant
Versus
1. Sachin Sharma, S/o Sh. Anil Kumar Sharma,
R/o 167/11, Purana Bazar,
Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi,
Himachal Pradesh.
2. Oriental Insurance Company,
Vidya Bhawan, Hospital Road,
Mandi, District Mandi, H.P.
...Respondents
.......................................................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Mr. Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President
Hon'ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member
Hon'ble Mrs. Prem Chauhan, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the Appellant: Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Neeraj Kishore Sharma, Advocate with
Mr. Ajay Parkash Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.2: Mr. Sanjay Singh Chauhan, Advocate.
..............................................................................................................
O R D E R:
Justice (Retd.) Surjit Singh, President (Oral) Appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 25.04.2013, of learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mandi, Camp at Sundernagar, whereby a complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, filed against it and respondent No.2-Oriental Insurance Company, by respondent No.1, Sachin Sharma, has been allowed and a direction issued to the appellant to pay `1.00 lac on account of loss of insured equipment, with interest at the rate of 9% 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order? State Bank of India v/s Sachin Sharma & Anr. {F.A. No. 150/2013} per annum, from 10.10.2005 till the date of payment of the aforesaid amount of money and also to pay `10,000/- on account of compensation and `3,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Respondent No.1, Sachin Sharma, herein-after called complainant, by raising a loan of `90,000/- from the appellant, herein-after called opposite party No.1, purchased a Video Camera and some other photography equipment. The equipment was insured by the opposite party No.1 (appellant) with National Insurance Company, soon after its purchase, for the period from 17.03.2004 to 16.03.2005. It appears that opposite party No.1 (appellant), being the financier, itself got the insurance done and undertook to get the insurance renewed. A sum of `551/- was debited in the loan account of the complainant on 31.05.2005, on account of further insurance, on the expiry of the initial insurance. On 09.07.2005, a theft took place in the shop of the father of the complainant, where he used to keep the equipment. The entire equipment was stolen. Complainant's father lodged report with the police.
3. Being under the impression that the goods were insured with the National Insurance Company, from which the initial policy had been purchased, complainant informed the said Insurance Company about the theft. A surveyor was deputed by the National Insurance Company. Intimation of the claim lodged by the complainant with the said National Insurance Company was given to the opposite party No.1(the State Bank of India v/s Sachin Sharma & Anr. {F.A. No. 150/2013} appellant) by the said Insurance Company and opposite party No.1 (appellant) directed the complainant to supply certain documents (other than the insurance policy) directly to the National Insurance Company. Opposite party No.1 (appellant) supplied the documents (other than the insurance policy) to that Company.
4. Insurance Company did not pay the claim despite supply of documents. A complaint was filed by the complainant before the learned District Forum, Mandi, against the opposite party No.1 (appellant) as also the National Insurance Company, being complaint No.223 of 2010. On 14.09.2011, when it was brought to the notice of the Forum that the allegedly stolen photography items were not insured with National Insurance Company but with Oriental Insurance Company, respondent No.2 herein, that complaint was withdrawn with liberty reserved to the complainant to file a fresh one, against the appellant as also the Oriental Insurance Company.
5. After the withdrawal of the aforesaid complaint, claim was lodged with the Oriental Insurance Company (respondent No.2), who repudiated the same on the ground that it was highly belated. Complainant then filed a fresh complaint against the appellant and respondent No.2. It was stated that the present appellant had misled the complainant about the name of the insurer, with which the stolen equipment was insured, and a direction was sought that the State Bank of India v/s Sachin Sharma & Anr. {F.A. No. 150/2013} appellant and the insurer be directed to pay the insurance money with compensation and litigation expenses.
6. Appellant/opposite party No.1 denied its liability and stated that at no point of time the complainant was informed that his equipment was insured with National Insurance Company. Respondent No.2 denied its liability on the ground that intimation of the loss had not been given to it promptly and also the claim was barred by time.
7. Learned District Forum, vide impugned order, has concluded that the appellant misled the complainant with regard to the name of the Insurance Company, with which the goods were insured and because of that the complainant had not been able to lodge claim with respondent No.2, within time. With this finding, appellant has been directed to pay a sum of `1.00 lac on account of monetary loss, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, from 10.10.2005, and also to pay compensation of `10,000/- and litigation expenses of `3,000/-. Appellant is aggrieved by this order and has, therefore, preferred the present appeal.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
9. Theft had taken place on 09.07.2005. Learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the theft took place in the shop of the father of the complainant and, therefore, there is no question of liability of the insurer or the appellant. Submission has been noticed only to be rejected. State Bank of India v/s Sachin Sharma & Anr. {F.A. No. 150/2013} First, no such plea is there in the reply. Secondly, what was insured, was the photography equipment purchased by the complainant, by raising loan from the appellant. There was no condition that the equipment was to be kept at any particular place, say the residence of the complainant, to seek indemnification for loss or that the liability under the policy could be enforced only if it was stolen from any particular palce. Insured goods were in the form of equipment used by the photographer for outside photography and, therefore, it could not have been kept at any particular place.
10. Another submission made on behalf of the appellant is that the complainant had at no point of time been informed by the appellant that after the expiry of the initial insurance cover, fresh policy had also been taken from the National Insurance Company. This submission is also meritless. Theft had taken place on 09.07.2005. On 03.08.2005, appellant addressed a letter, copy Annexure C-1/A, to the complainant informing that it had received a fax message from National Insurance Company about the theft of insured equipment and that some documents listed in the said letter be supplied to the said Insurance Company directly.
11. The document shows that within a few days of the occurrence of the incident of theft, appellant was aware that the complainant had been reeling under the mistaken belief that stolen goods were insured with National Insurance Company. Instead of informing the complainant that the goods State Bank of India v/s Sachin Sharma & Anr. {F.A. No. 150/2013} were not insured with National Insurance Company but with Oriental Insurance Company, respondent No.2 herein, the appellant confirmed the mistaken belief of the complainant that the goods were insured with National Insurance Company, by writing letter dated 03.08.2005, copy Annexure C-3.
12. It was only in the year 2011, when the hearing in the earlier complaint instituted by the complainant was taking place, that it was brought to the notice of the complainant, that his goods had been insured by the appellant, by making debit entry of `551/- in his loan account, with the Oriental Insurance Company and not with the National Insurance Company. 13. From the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that the concerned officials of the appellant bank were deficient in rendering service of insurance, for which they had charged the complainant, by making debit entry of premium in his loan account. This deficiency in service has caused monetary loss to the extent of amount of money, for which the equipment was insured. Goods were insured for `1.00 lacs. Therefore, no fault can be found with the impugned order of learned District Forum. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. However, it is ordered that the sum total of various amounts of money ordered to be paid by the appellant, it (appellant) may adjust that much amount of money, as is owed by the complainant to it in the loan account, in question, and the balance, if any, shall be paid in cash.
State Bank of India v/s Sachin Sharma & Anr. {F.A. No. 150/2013}
14. A copy of this order be sent to each of the parties, free of cost, as per Rules.
(Justice Surjit Singh) President (Chander Shekhar Sharma) Member (Prem Chauhan) Member September 03, 2013.
DC Dhiman)