Nationwide Client Disputes Redressal Fee ne yeh determine kiya hai ki financial institution hypothecated items ka insurance coverage na hone par zimmedar nahi hote. Mr. Subhash Chandra aur Dr. Sadhna Shanker ke management mein fee ne yeh kaha ki insurance coverage karwana complainant (is case me debtors) ki duty hoti hai, na ki financial institution ki.
Background of the Case
Complainant, jo quilts aur foam ka enterprise karta tha, uska inventory aur godown Canara Financial institution ke by means of insure kiya gaya tha. Financial institution ne insurance coverage premium complainant ke account se deduct karke Nationwide Insurance coverage Firm ke by means of insurance coverage prepare kiya. Insurance coverage coverage approve hone se pehle, financial institution ke staff ne inventory aur godown ka inspection bhi kiya tha.
Jab aag lagne se inventory khatam ho gaya, to complainant ne police aur financial institution ko notify kiya. Unhone yeh ilzaam lagaya ki financial institution ne time par insurance coverage coverage renew nahi ki aur aag ke baad bina inspection aur discover ke insurance coverage prepare kiya. Complainant ne Uttar Pradesh State Fee mein criticism file ki, jinhone complainant ke haq mein faisla diya. State Fee ne financial institution ko ₹25 lakh insured damages ke saath 8% easy annual curiosity, ₹20,000 psychological aur financial damages ke liye, aur ₹5,000 litigation prices ke liye pay karne ka order diya.
Financial institution’s Argument
Financial institution ne Nationwide Fee mein enchantment ki aur argue kiya ki insurance coverage renewal ki zimmedari complainant ki thi, aur unhone financial institution ko inform nahi kiya. Financial institution ne kaha complainant ko koi reduction nahi milni chahiye aur case ko dismiss karne ki maang ki.
Fee’s Evaluation and Findings
Nationwide Fee ne yeh dekha ki kya financial institution hypothecated items ka insurance coverage na hone par zimmedar tha. Fee ne Credit score-Cum-Money Settlement (CCA) ke Clause 12 ka reference diya, jisme yeh clearly point out tha ki borrower ko apne kharche par items insure karna hoga aur insurance coverage insurance policies aur receipts financial institution ko deni hongi. Agar complainant motion na le, to financial institution insurance coverage karwa sakta tha, lekin yeh unki koi duty or responsibility nahi thi.
Fee ne discover kiya ki complainant insurance coverage coverage ki particulars se conscious tha aur pehle apne agent ke by means of insurance coverage prepare kiya karta tha. Proof yeh dikhata hai ki complainant ko coverage ke expiration date ka pata tha, lekin usne renewal ke liye koi step nahi liya.
Hearth Loss and Lack of Proof
Aag lagne se inventory ke loss par, Fee ne kaha ki complainant ne apne loss ko show karne ke liye koi formal loss evaluation submit nahi kiya. Sirf police aur financial institution ko report karna kaafi nahi tha.
Fee’s Conclusion
Proof ke base par, Nationwide Fee ne yeh determine kiya ki complainant ne related interval mein inventory ka insurance coverage karwane ke liye zaroori steps nahi liye, aur financial institution par koi galti nahi thi. Fee ne pehle ke circumstances jaise Union Financial institution of India vs. Tirumala Enterprises aur Oriental Financial institution of Commerce vs. HS Merchants & Ors. ka zikr kiya, jisme yeh clear hua tha ki financial institution Client Safety Act, 2019 ke tahat service mein koi deficiency nahi thi.
Last Determination
Nationwide Fee ne Uttar Pradesh State Fee ka order put aside kiya, financial institution ki enchantment permit ki, aur complainant ke compensation aur reduction claims ko dismiss kar diya.
Nationwide Client Disputes Redressal Fee ne yeh determine kiya hai ki financial institution hypothecated items ka insurance coverage na hone par zimmedar nahi hote. Mr. Subhash Chandra aur Dr. Sadhna Shanker ke management mein fee ne yeh kaha ki insurance coverage karwana complainant (is case me debtors) ki duty hoti hai, na ki financial institution ki.
Background of the Case
Complainant, jo quilts aur foam ka enterprise karta tha, uska inventory aur godown Canara Financial institution ke by means of insure kiya gaya tha. Financial institution ne insurance coverage premium complainant ke account se deduct karke Nationwide Insurance coverage Firm ke by means of insurance coverage prepare kiya. Insurance coverage coverage approve hone se pehle, financial institution ke staff ne inventory aur godown ka inspection bhi kiya tha.
Jab aag lagne se inventory khatam ho gaya, to complainant ne police aur financial institution ko notify kiya. Unhone yeh ilzaam lagaya ki financial institution ne time par insurance coverage coverage renew nahi ki aur aag ke baad bina inspection aur discover ke insurance coverage prepare kiya. Complainant ne Uttar Pradesh State Fee mein criticism file ki, jinhone complainant ke haq mein faisla diya. State Fee ne financial institution ko ₹25 lakh insured damages ke saath 8% easy annual curiosity, ₹20,000 psychological aur financial damages ke liye, aur ₹5,000 litigation prices ke liye pay karne ka order diya.
Financial institution’s Argument
Financial institution ne Nationwide Fee mein enchantment ki aur argue kiya ki insurance coverage renewal ki zimmedari complainant ki thi, aur unhone financial institution ko inform nahi kiya. Financial institution ne kaha complainant ko koi reduction nahi milni chahiye aur case ko dismiss karne ki maang ki.
Fee’s Evaluation and Findings
Nationwide Fee ne yeh dekha ki kya financial institution hypothecated items ka insurance coverage na hone par zimmedar tha. Fee ne Credit score-Cum-Money Settlement (CCA) ke Clause 12 ka reference diya, jisme yeh clearly point out tha ki borrower ko apne kharche par items insure karna hoga aur insurance coverage insurance policies aur receipts financial institution ko deni hongi. Agar complainant motion na le, to financial institution insurance coverage karwa sakta tha, lekin yeh unki koi duty or responsibility nahi thi.
Fee ne discover kiya ki complainant insurance coverage coverage ki particulars se conscious tha aur pehle apne agent ke by means of insurance coverage prepare kiya karta tha. Proof yeh dikhata hai ki complainant ko coverage ke expiration date ka pata tha, lekin usne renewal ke liye koi step nahi liya.
Hearth Loss and Lack of Proof
Aag lagne se inventory ke loss par, Fee ne kaha ki complainant ne apne loss ko show karne ke liye koi formal loss evaluation submit nahi kiya. Sirf police aur financial institution ko report karna kaafi nahi tha.
Fee’s Conclusion
Proof ke base par, Nationwide Fee ne yeh determine kiya ki complainant ne related interval mein inventory ka insurance coverage karwane ke liye zaroori steps nahi liye, aur financial institution par koi galti nahi thi. Fee ne pehle ke circumstances jaise Union Financial institution of India vs. Tirumala Enterprises aur Oriental Financial institution of Commerce vs. HS Merchants & Ors. ka zikr kiya, jisme yeh clear hua tha ki financial institution Client Safety Act, 2019 ke tahat service mein koi deficiency nahi thi.
Last Determination
Nationwide Fee ne Uttar Pradesh State Fee ka order put aside kiya, financial institution ki enchantment permit ki, aur complainant ke compensation aur reduction claims ko dismiss kar diya.
