Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6.      In the rejoinder to the written version of the Bank, complainant had stated that it was a joint venture of both the Insurance Company and the Bank  and has further stated that present MD  of Insurance Company was the MD of the Bank in the year 2006 and one of the Executive Director of the Insurance Company is also the MD of the Bank and that insurance company being a Company of Japan, nobody knows it in India and is doing his business as a joint venture with the Banks which includes Allahabad Bank, Karnataka Bank and India Overseas Bank and, therefore, the contention that Bank has no connection with the insurance company is meritless.

13.      Regarding joint venture between the Bank and the Insurance Company, the State Commission has observed as under:

"From a bare perusal of the Insurance Policy Schedules filed by the complainant at page 11-14 of the complaint, it is evident that the OP No.1/Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd is a joint venture between Allahabad Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Karnataka Bank and Dabur Investments. It is further evident from these Schedules that the name of the OP No.2 viz Allahabad Bank has been shown as Intermediary Name and hypothecation has also been mentioned in favour of the OP No.2/Bank. Thus, we find force in the contention of the complainant that both the Opposite parties viz Insurance Company and the Bank were engaged in joint venture business and the subjected policies were arranged by the Bank as a part of entire arrangement to cover the risks from certain perils and during the entire period the OP No.2/Allahabad Bank was the de-jure owner of the stocks in question for the reason that the entire stocks were admittedly hypothecated to the bank and from the documents placed on record, it is clear that the entire arrangement was mutually entered into between the parties for protecting the interests of OP No.2/Bank as well."
The presumption of having knowledge about the addition of new premises by the OP No.1/Insurance Company is drawn in favour of the complainant and further finds support from the fact that it had appointed its surveyor to inspect and survey the new premises which was done by the surveyor. Moreover, the claim of the complainant of informing about the newly added premises was not refuted by the OP No.1/Insurance Company even after 29/6/12 i.e. the first incidence of peril till the second date of peril/fire. Even otherwise, if the version of the OP No.1/Insurance Company is to be believed that it had not received the letter dated 31/3/12 sent by the OP No.2/Bank, the bank has to be held to be deficient in rendering due services to the complainant and being the joint venture of OP No.1, both the OPs are jointly or severally liable to compensate the loss suffered by the complainant. The Counsel for the OP No.1/Insurance Company has relied upon some decisions of the Hon'ble National Commission. We have considered the same. Suffice it to say that these cases are distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in none of these cases the Insurance Company and the Bank were the joint venture of each other having common management whereas in the present case the OP No.1/Insurance Company is the joint venture of the OP No.1/Allahabad Bank."

15.    The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has failed to point out any evidence on record which was not considered by the State Commission and having a vital impact on the impugned order. There is no denial of the facts that there was common management on Board,  and both the Bank and the Insurance Company were working together through common management.  It is an admitted fact that the complainant had informed the Bank of the shifting of stock from Rajgarh to Bawana, the place which was already mortgaged to Bank, when loan was taken and the complainant  had done the needful by  informing the Bank regarding shifting of stock and the Bank has also admitted that on receiving the letter from the complainant, it  had forwarded it to Insurance Company  The Bank should have filed the proof of forwarding the letter to the Insurance Company in view of the denial by the Insurance Company.  The Bank, however, has suppressed it and we cannot close our eyes to the fact that the Bank and the Insurance Company are in a joint venture for profit and so the bank has intentionally concealed the proof with the intention to profiteer its joint venture company.