State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sk. Haider Ali vs The Chief Manager, State Bank Of India, ... on 29 November, 2013
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal 11-A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET KOLKATA-700 087. S.C. CASE NO. : FA/130/2012 (Arisen out of judgment dt. 19.1.2012 of DCDRF, Purba Medinipore in Consumer Case No. 48 of 2006) DATE OF FILING : 28.03.2012 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 29.11.2013 APPELLANT Sk. Haider Ali S/o Late Sk. Panchu Prop. Of M/s. Mahammad Construction Of Village Bhabanipur, P.O. Debhog, Haldia, Dist. Purba Medinipore. RESPONDENTS 1. The Chief Manager State Bank of India Haldia Port Branch Durgachak P.O. & P.S. Durgachak Dist. Purba Medinipore. 2. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Haldia Branch, P.O. & P. S. Haldia, Dist. Purba Medinipore. BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT MEMBER : MRS. MRIDULA ROY FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Rajarshi Datta, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT : Mr. Saraj Kumar Chatterjee, Ld. Advocate : O R D E R :
MRS. MRIDULA ROY, LD. MEMBER The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dt. 19.1.2012 passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Purba Medinipore, in Consumer Case No. 48 of 2006 whereby the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint petition on contest without cost.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid order the complainant has preferred the instant Appeal.
Complainants case before the Ld. District Forum, in brief, was that he had a current account (Overdraft) loan of Rs. 2.50 lakhs, vide Loan Account being No. 01660060276, with the OP/State Bank of India for smooth running of his construction business. Subsequently, he availed himself of another loan for renovation of his dwelling house situated within Plot No. 688 under Khatian No. 231/9 of Mouza Bhabanipur, J.L. No. 150, Ward No. 15 under certain terms and conditions of the loan agreement executed by and between the parties. As per terms of the subsequent loan agreement, the dwelling house of the complainant was insured with the OP No. 2/Insurance Co. Ltd. and the insurance coverage was valid till 18.12.2009 and the sum assured in respect of the said policy being No. 11/04/648 was Rs. 1,80,000/-.
The complainant stated that on 21.4.2006 at late night his dwelling house got damaged to a great extent due to storm resulting in the bodily injury of the complainants son and daughter-in-law due to the fall of chunks from the ceiling of their bedroom. Accordingly, the complainant lodged a General Diary with the local Police Station bearing G.D.Entry No. 801/26.4.2006 and informed the OP No. 1/Bank and the OP No. 2/Insurance Company for taking necessary actions from their respective end. The complainant further stated that the Insurance Co. sent a surveyor to assess the loss and accordingly, the surveyor had submitted his report. But none of the Ops took any step regarding the claim of the complainant to make good the loss he had to incur due to impact of the storm. The complainant further stated that he had engaged an engineer to assess the quantum of loss and as per the report submitted by the engineer, the damages were estimated to the tune of Rs. 1,95,545/-. The complainant also claimed that he had to spend a sum of Rs. 8,157/- towards the medical treatment of his daughter-in-law, for which he was entitled to be compensated by the Ops. Hence, he filed the petition of complaint before the Ld. District Forum praying for direction upon the OP/Bank to pay Rs. 1,95,549/- towards the cost of repairing the premises and Rs. 8,157/- towards medical treatment and Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony of the complainant, which means the Bank was to pay Rs. 2,28,706/- in total, alternatively, an enquiry into the cost and damages suffered by the complainant due to wrongful acts and omissions of the Respondent and to pay cost of litigation.
The OP/Bank appeared and contested the case by filing written objection denying and disputing all material allegations stating, inter alia, that a Cash Credit Working Capital Loan of Rs. 2,50,000/- only bearing Loan Account No. 01660060276 in favour of the complainant as a proprietor of M/s. Mahammad Construction was disbursed on 30.5.2002.
The complainant mortgaged his land along with the building situated on Plot No. 688 of Mouza Bhabanipur, J.L. No. 150, Dist. Purba Medinipore towards collateral security with the Bank and accordingly, the assets (not the building), stocks, purchases had been insured against fire, theft, burglary, etc. The said working capital loan was a running loan and payable on demand. The OP/Bank had specifically stated that it was the responsibility of the borrower, i.e. the complainant, to renew the insurance policies from time to time.
But in the instant case the borrower/complainant had not taken responsibility to renew the policy against stocks and assets. The complainant, as the OP No. 1 submitted, had taken another House Building Loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 15.12.2003, vide Account No. 01593017878, for the purpose of renovation of his residential house on the Plot No. 688 of Mouza Bhabanipur from the OP/Bank and subsequently, created an equitable mortgage against the land and the building. The complainant had his residential building insured with the OP/Insurance Co. and the said policy had the validity till midnight of 18.2.2009. Being acknowledged by the complainant regarding the damage of his residential house due to impact of the storm the OP Bank had taken all possible necessary actions including the correspondence with the Insurance Co. and accordingly, a surveyor of the Insurance Co. had inspected the premises and requested the complainant to furnish documents/information by 7.8.2006, vide their letters dt. 20.6.2006 and 26.7.2006, but the complainant did not respond to those letters. According to the OP/Bank, there was no deficiency in providing service on the part of the Bank and, therefore, the Bank prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint with cost.
The OP No. 2/Insurance Co. also appeared and filed written version denying all allegations stating, inter alia, that they took all necessary steps and towards that, sent a surveyor to assess the quantum of damage of the residential building of the complainant.
As per the report of the surveyor dt. 2.3.2007 it appeared that the complainant created a story of damages of his house by the impact of a storm which took place on 22.4.2006. The OP No. 2 had specifically stated that it would also appear that although the complainant availed himself of the House Renovation Loan from the OP No. 1/Bank, he did nothing towards renovation of his house and the damage caused in the residential building of the complainant was due to natural wear and tear. Therefore, the complainant was not entitled to get any relief from the OP No. 2.
In course of hearing of the Appeal Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/Complainant has submitted that the residential building of the complainant has been damaged badly due to impact of the storm which occurred at the night of 21.4.2006. Accordingly, a General Diary was lodged with the concerned Police Station on 26.4.2006.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant further submitted that the type of insurance policy was Standard Fire Special Peril Policy and he also mentioned the nature of loss was as Roof of the insured building damaged in storm. In support of his contention the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has furnished the survey report on damage of building furnished by the engaged surveyor dt. 2.3.2007.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant further submitted that the surveyor also reported the date and time of the accident as per this reporting was 21.4.2006 at about 02:00 hours. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has further submitted that he engaged an engineer who assessed the loss and estimated the cost of reconstruction of the said building and the said engineer estimated the cost as to reconstruction of the building towards Rs. 1,95,549/-. In support of his contention the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant filed a copy of that estimate.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 has submitted that the building was damaged due to natural wear and tear. In support of his contention the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 referred to the surveyors report dt. 2.3.2007, which was also relied upon by the Complainant/Appellant and has drawn our attention to the finding of the surveyor which runs as :
In view of the above, we conclude that the ceiling of the building was not damaged in the storm, but it had got damaged on the previous day of the storm for reasons of its natural weakness.
Hearing the arguments advanced by the Ld. Advocates for the Appellant and the Respondent No. 2 respectively and perusing the documents it appears that the complainant availed himself of loan from the Respondent/Bank, which was payable by the complainant under certain terms and conditions. In respect of the House Building Loan the residential building along with the plot of land was under insurance coverage by the Insurer/Respondent No. 2. The Appellant/complainant has alleged that he had to suffer from the damages caused by the impact of storm as well as to incur a huge financial loss for the same, for which the Respondent/Bank is liable to make good the loss. On careful perusal of the documents on record it is nowhere found that the loaner/Bank is responsible to make good the loss allegedly suffered by the complainant.
It is needless to say that the loanee availed himself of the loan under certain terms and conditions of the loan agreement executed by and between the parties and the terms and conditions are binding upon the parties. The Appellant/Complainant failed to establish that there is no such terms as per which the Bank is liable to compensate him for the damages due to the impact of the alleged storm. We find no deficiency in providing service on the part of the Bank.
In view of the discussion made hereinabove we are of the opinion that the Ld. District Forum passed the order in proper way and there is no need to interfere with the same. In the result, the Appeal fails.
Hence, it is ORDERED that the Appeal stands dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. The impugned judgement stands confirmed.
MEMBER PRESIDENT