File photo
It directed both to pay Rs 35,75,735 as compensation for the loss caused by a fire at his shop. The commission ordered the bank and the insurer to pay the amount jointly and in equal proportion, with 9% annual interest from April 20, 2016, the date the claim was repudiated, until realisation. They must also pay Rs 50,000 for mental and physical harassment and Rs 15,000 as costs, again in equal proportion. He claimed a loss of Rs 45 lakh or more. A surveyor, J C Bhansali and Company, assessed the loss at Rs 35,75,735 in a report dated Nov 18, 2015. The insurer repudiated the claim, saying the cheque of Rs 10,565 dated May 22, 2015, issued towards the premium, was dishonoured and no premium was paid, so the policy was not in force. The trader, who had a cash credit and overdraft facility of Rs 40 lakh with the bank, said neither opponent had told him of the dishonour. He sought Rs 1 crore. The opponents claimed they had informed him on May 28, 2015 through insurance agent Mahendra Chhotelal Gadwal.
His shop caught fire due to a short circuit at about 4am on August 17, 2015. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission bench, Aurangabad, has held State Bank of Hyderabad (now merged with State Bank of India) and United India Insurance Company Ltd guilty of deficiency in service for not informing a Parbhani trader that his insurance premium cheque had bounced. Advocate P N Kalani appeared for the complainant trader, S D Deshpande for the bank and S V Kulkarni for the insurer. The bank also argued that it was the complainant’s duty to maintain sufficient balance.
The commission noted that the cheque bounced on May 27, 2015 for non-arrangement of funds, and the fire occurred about two and a half months later, with no communication to the trader in between.
It said the dishonour should have been intimated to him personally, given his regular high-value transactions with the bank. It rejected the claim of intimation through Gadwal, who is the insurer’s agent and had deposed in favour of the trader, denying any such intimation.