National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ne yeh decide kiya hai ki bank hypothecated goods ka insurance na hone par zimmedar nahi hote. Mr. Subhash Chandra aur Dr. Sadhna Shanker ke leadership mein commission ne yeh kaha ki insurance karwana complainant (is case me borrowers) ki responsibility hoti hai, na ki bank ki.
Background of the Case
Complainant, jo quilts aur foam ka business karta tha, uska stock aur godown Canara Bank ke through insure kiya gaya tha. Bank ne insurance premium complainant ke account se deduct karke National Insurance Company ke through insurance arrange kiya. Insurance policy approve hone se pehle, bank ke employees ne stock aur godown ka inspection bhi kiya tha.
Jab aag lagne se stock khatam ho gaya, to complainant ne police aur bank ko notify kiya. Unhone yeh ilzaam lagaya ki bank ne time par insurance policy renew nahi ki aur aag ke baad bina inspection aur notice ke insurance arrange kiya. Complainant ne Uttar Pradesh State Commission mein complaint file ki, jinhone complainant ke haq mein faisla diya. State Commission ne bank ko ₹25 lakh insured damages ke saath 8% simple annual interest, ₹20,000 mental aur economic damages ke liye, aur ₹5,000 litigation costs ke liye pay karne ka order diya.
Bank’s Argument
Bank ne National Commission mein appeal ki aur argue kiya ki insurance renewal ki zimmedari complainant ki thi, aur unhone bank ko inform nahi kiya. Bank ne kaha complainant ko koi relief nahi milni chahiye aur case ko dismiss karne ki maang ki.
Commission’s Analysis and Findings
National Commission ne yeh dekha ki kya bank hypothecated goods ka insurance na hone par zimmedar tha. Commission ne Credit-Cum-Cash Agreement (CCA) ke Clause 12 ka reference diya, jisme yeh clearly mention tha ki borrower ko apne kharche par goods insure karna hoga aur insurance policies aur receipts bank ko deni hongi. Agar complainant action na le, to bank insurance karwa sakta tha, lekin yeh unki koi responsibility or duty nahi thi.
Commission ne notice kiya ki complainant insurance policy ki details se aware tha aur pehle apne agent ke through insurance arrange kiya karta tha. Evidence yeh dikhata hai ki complainant ko policy ke expiration date ka pata tha, lekin usne renewal ke liye koi step nahi liya.
Fire Loss and Lack of Evidence
Aag lagne se stock ke loss par, Commission ne kaha ki complainant ne apne loss ko prove karne ke liye koi formal loss assessment submit nahi kiya. Sirf police aur bank ko report karna kaafi nahi tha.
Commission’s Conclusion
Evidence ke base par, National Commission ne yeh decide kiya ki complainant ne relevant period mein stock ka insurance karwane ke liye zaroori steps nahi liye, aur bank par koi galti nahi thi. Commission ne pehle ke cases jaise Union Bank of India vs. Tirumala Enterprises aur Oriental Bank of Commerce vs. HS Traders & Ors. ka zikr kiya, jisme yeh clear hua tha ki bank Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ke tahat service mein koi deficiency nahi thi.
Final Decision
National Commission ne Uttar Pradesh State Commission ka order set aside kiya, bank ki appeal allow ki, aur complainant ke compensation aur relief claims ko dismiss kar diya.
