J&K&L HC Quashes 65-Year-Old's Detention, says Cattle Smuggling isn't Public Disorder  ||  Karnataka HC Bars Denial of MV Inspector Posts over Experience with Non-Existent HGV/HPV Vehicles  ||  P&H HC: Lengthy Incarceration alone is No Substantial Change for Repeat Bail Plea  ||  Meghalaya HC Flags Amicus' Non-Appearance amid Lawyers' Strike, Stresses Loyalty to Justice  ||  MP HC: Arms Act doesn't allow Sports Firearm Licence Conversion to Self-Defence Category  ||  Delhi HC: Public Funding of LTC, CGHS Benefits doesn't Mandate Personal Disclosure under RTI  ||  Delhi HC: Fake Caste Certificate alone cannot Justify Removing Advocate from State Rolls  ||  Delhi HC Refuses to Stop Sale of 47 Law Books in Family Copyright Dispute  ||  Supreme Court: S. 394 IPC Conviction Requires Proof of Robbery or Attempted Robbery  ||  Supreme Court Questions MP HC's Cryptic Reduction of Murder Conviction as 'Shocking'    

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur & Anr. v. Jagdamba Eant Udyog & Anr. - (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) (22 Aug 2016)

Complainant obliged to get property insured, failure on part of opposite party not amount to deficiency of service

MANU/CF/0335/2016

Consumer

Complainant/Respondent No.1 was sanctioned loan by Opposite Party /Appellants and complainant executed various documents and hypothecated/mortgaged property for repayment of aforesaid loan. As per loan documents, property was to be insured by Opposite Party but they failed to get it insured. Complainant availed term loan and fixed loan for establishing factory and started working. Due to heavy snow fall complainant’s Eant Bhatta was completely destroyed. Complainant intimated to opposite party and opposite party, instead of paying claim, served notice under Section 13(2) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, against which complainant filed writ before Rajasthan High Court but Hon’ble High Court dismissed writ petition. Complainant sustained loss due to damage of its properties and also suffered business loss. Alleging deficiency on part of opposite parties, complainant filed complaint before State Commission. State Commission, allowed complaint and directed opposite party to pay compensation, against which present appeal has been filed.

Complainant has not filed complaint within a period of two years from the date of loss and as such complaint was barred by limitation. Complainant admittedly has not filed any application for condonation of delay under Section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act before State Commission. Complaint was barred by limitation, which was liable to be dismissed by State Commission.

Complainant was under obligation to get property in question insured in joint name of complainant and Bank and Bank was not under any obligation to get it insured though liberty was given to Bank that if complainant fails to effect such insurance, Bank may, but without being obliged to do so, get property insured. Thus, State Commission committed error in holding that, opposite party was under obligation to get property insured. Opposite party got property insured after incident after deducting premium amount from complainant’s account, but by no stretch of imagination, it can be presumed that opposite party was under obligation to get property insured at time of incident and failure on part of opposite party amounting to any deficiency on its part.

Tags : INSURANCE   OBLIGATION   DEFICIENCY   COMPENSATION  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved