Supreme Court: State Must Be Impleaded When Relief is Sought From Public Exchequer  ||  SC: Student Fees Cannot Be Increased Mid-Course Except in Exceptional Circumstances  ||  Supreme Court: ED's Delay in Sending Arrest Order Does Not By Itself Invalidate Arrest  ||  Supreme Court: Appeal Limitation Runs From NCLAT Order Pronouncement, Not Certified Copy Receipt  ||  Gujarat High Court: Waqf Tribunal Has No Supervisory Authority Over Waqf Board  ||  Kerala High Court Orders Aadhaar Fingerprint Comparison to Trace Sreekrishnapuram Murder Culprits  ||  Delhi High Court: Unnatural Death at Police Station Alone Cannot Establish Police Negligence  ||  Orissa High Court: Teacher Scolding Student for Intoxicant Use is Not Suicide Abetment  ||  Supreme Court: Drug Users are Victims and Focus Must Be on Breaking the Supply Chain  ||  Supreme Court: Non-Signatories May Join Arbitration When the Dispute Affects Their Rights    

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