LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Gramin Bank like the appellant should stand for the benefit of the gramins who sometimes avail of loan for buying buffaloes, to purchase agricultural implements, manure, seeds and so on. Repayment, to a large extent, depends upon the income which they get out of that. Crop failure, due to drought or natural calamities, disease to cattle or their death may cause difficulties to gramins to repay the amount. Rather than coming to their rescue, banks often drive them to litigation leading them extreme penury. Assuming that the bank is right, but once an authority like District Forum takes a view, the bank should graciously accept it rather than going in for further litigation and even to the level of Supreme Court. Driving poor gramins to various litigative forums should be strongly deprecated because they have also to spend large amounts for conducting litigation. We condemn this type of practice, unless the stake is very high or the matter affects large number of persons or affects a general policy of the Bank which has far reaching consequences.


                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6261 OF 2012

                 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8875/2010




    Gurgaon Gramin Bank                                 .. Appellants

                                   Versus

    Smt. Khazani & Anr.                                 .. Respondents

                               J U D G M E N T

K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.



1. Leave granted.




2.    Number of litigations in our country is on the  rise,  for  small  and
trivial matters, people and sometimes  Central  and  State  Governments  and
their instrumentalities Banks, nationalized or private, come to  courts  may
be due to ego clash or to save the Officers’ skin.  Judicial system is over-
burdened, naturally causes delay in  adjudication  of  disputes.   Mediation
centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some  extent,  eased
the burden of the courts but we are still in the tunnel  and  the  light  is
far away.  On more than one occasion, this court has  reminded  the  Central
Government, State Governments and other instrumentalities as well as to  the
various  banking  institutions  to  take  earnest  efforts  to  resolve  the
disputes at their end.  At times, some give  and  take  attitude  should  be
adopted or both will sink.  Unless, serious  questions  of  law  of  general
importance arise for consideration or a question which affects large  number
of persons or the stakes  are  very  high,  courts  jurisdiction  cannot  be
invoked for  resolution  of  small  and  trivial  matters.   We  are  really
disturbed by the manner in which those types of matters  are  being  brought
to courts even at the level of Supreme Court of India and  this  case  falls
in that category.

3.    Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked by a Gramin Bank on an issue  on
which no question of law arises for consideration.  Facts are as follows:

Smt. Khazani, the first respondent had availed of a loan from the  appellant
bank to purchase a buffalo and the same was insured  for  Rs.15000/-  for  a
period from 06.02.2001 to 06.02.2004 vide Animal’s tag  No.  NIA/03170  with
the New India  Assurance  Company  Ltd.–  second  respondent  herein.   Smt.
Khazani had made payment of Rs.759/- as premium on 05.03.2001  vide  receipt
No. 170612.  The buffalo unfortunately died on 27.12.2001.  The post  mortem
was conducted by veterinary surgeon, Pataudi on 27.12.2001 vide PMR No.50.

4.    Smt. Khazani lodged a claim for insurance money through the  appellant
bank and also supplied ear tag  bearing  No.  NIA  03170  to  the  bank  for
forwarding the same to the insurance  company.   Since  no  steps  had  been
taken either by the bank or by the insurance company, Smt.  Khazani  sent  a
notice on 30.07.2003 to the bank as well as to the insurance company,  which
yielded no results.

5.    Smt. Khazani then filed a complaint  bearing  No.825  of  2004  before
District Consumer Disputes Redressal  Forum,  Gurgaon.   The  complaint  was
allowed by the Forum vide its order dated 26.07.2007 with  cost  stating  as
follows:

        “We, therefore, allow this complaint and direct Opposite Party No.2
        to pay the insurance money  of  the  buffalo  in  question  to  the
        complainant together with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from  the
        date of death of buffalo till actual  payment  is  made.   Opposite
        Party No.2 is also burdened to pay Rs.3,000/- to the complainant on
        account of cost of litigation and compensation for  the  harassment
        caused by Opposite Party No.2 to the complainant.   Order  of  this
        Forum be complied within one month”.



6.    The bank, dissatisfied with the order by  the  District  Forum,  filed
Appeal No.2404/2007 before State  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Commission,
Haryana, Panchkula.  Rejecting the  appeal,  the  appellate  forum  held  as
follows:

        “Admittedly, the complainant had got her buffalo insured  with  the
        opposite party no.1 with Tag bearing No.NIA03170.  The post  mortem
        report Annexure C-2 which was conducted by the vet.  surgeon  is  a
        cogent proof with respect to the death of buffalo and in  the  said
        report the vet. surgeon had mentioned the Tag number of buffalo  as
        03170.  However, the opposite  party  No.1  insurance  company  has
        denied having received of any Tag with the claim form submitted  by
        the complainant.  As per noting given by the field officer  of  the
        opposite party No.1, the buffalo was lying dead and  there  was  no
        Tag in the ear of the dead buffalo.  Thus, the burden shift on  the
        opposite party No.2 that the Tag was not sent to  the  appellant  –
        opposite Party No.1 for  settling  the  claim  in  respect  of  the
        buffalo.”




7.    The matter did not end there.   The  bank  again  moved  the  National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi against  the  order  dated
21.07.2009 passed by the State Commission,  Haryana  by  filing  a  Revision
Petition No. 4098 of 2009.  The National Commission dismissed  the  Revision
on 25.11.2009 stating as follows:

        “Finding recorded by the State Commission  is  a  finding  of  fact,
        which  cannot  be  interfered  with  in   exercise   of   Revisional
        jurisdiction.  Under Section 21  of  the  Consumer  Protection  Act,
        1986, the National Commission, in revision, can interfere  with  the
        orders only if it appears that the Authority below has  exercised  a
        jurisdiction not vested in it by law or has  failed  to  exercise  a
        jurisdiction  so  vested  or  has  acted  in  the  exercise  of  its
        jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.

            We find no error/irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by
        the State Commission in its impugned order.  Dismissed.”




8.    The bank, still not satisfied, thought of  bringing  Smt.  Khazani  to
the Supreme Court and filed the present Special Leave Petition  against  the
order of the National Commission.  Luckily, they got notice on  the  Special
Leave Petition and Smt. Khazani has been brought to this Court.  May be  due
to the ill-luck of the bank, the matter is before us.  When the matter  came
up for hearing on 09.07.2012, we asked the counsel for the bank  as  to  how
much amount they had spent till date on this dispute which  relates  to  the
death of a buffalo, stake of which is only 15,000/-.  We passed an order  on
09.07.2012 which reads as follows:

        “We find that the dispute is only with regard  to  Rs.15,000/-  and
        the matter has still been brought to Supreme Court.

        Bank will file affidavit within  four  weeks  with  regard  to  the
        amount spent for this litigation.

        List after four weeks.”




9.    The Chief Manager of the bank in compliance with this order  filed  an
affidavit with regard to the amount spent for litigation so far in  a  chart
form which is reproduced hereunder:

|S.No.      |Forum/Courts     |Amount of     |Misc. expenses|Total         |
|           |                 |Legal Fees    |              |              |
|1.         |In District Forum|2,200/-       |200/-         |2,400/-       |
|2.         |In State Forum   |1,750/-       |300/-         |2,050/-       |
|3.         |In Supreme Court |7,500/-       |1000/-        |8,500/-       |
|           |of India         |              |              |              |
|Total      |                 |              |              |12,950/-      |


10.   The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill was  raised  by
the counsel for the bank for  conducting  the  matter  before  the  National
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission.  We  have  not  been  told  how  much
money has been spent by the bank officers for their to and fro  journeys  to
the  lawyers’  office,  to  the  District  Forum,  State   Forum,   National
Commission and to the Supreme Court.  For a  paltry  amount  of  Rs.15000/-,
even according to the affidavit, bank has already spent a  total  amount  of
Rs.12,950/- leaving aside the time spent and  other  miscellaneous  expenses
spent by the officers of the bank for to and fro  expenses  etc.    Further,
it may be noted that the District Forum had awarded Rs.3,000/- towards  cost
of litigation and compensation for the harassment caused  to  Smt.  Khazani.
Adding this amount, the cost goes up to Rs.15,950/-.  Remember, the  buffalo
had died 10 years back, but the litigation is not over, fight  is  still  on
for Rs.15,000/-.

11.   Learned counsel appearing for the bank, Shri  Amit  Grover,  submitted
that though the amount involved is not very high but the claim was fake  and
on inspection by the insurance company, no tag was found on  the  dead  body
of the buffalo and hence the insurer was not bound to make  good  the  loss,
consequently the bank had to proceed against Smt. Khazani.

12.   We are of the view that issues raised before us are  purely  questions
of facts examined by  the  three  forums  including  the  National  Disputes
Redressal Commission and we fail to see what is the  important  question  of
law to be decided by the  Supreme  Court.   In  our  view,  these  types  of
litigation should be discouraged and message should also go,  otherwise  for
all trivial and silly matters people will rush to this court.

13.   Gramin Bank like the appellant should stand for  the  benefit  of  the
gramins who sometimes avail  of  loan  for  buying  buffaloes,  to  purchase
agricultural implements, manure, seeds and so on.   Repayment,  to  a  large
extent, depends upon the income which they get out of that.   Crop  failure,
due to drought or natural calamities, disease to cattle or their  death  may
cause difficulties to gramins to repay the amount.  Rather  than  coming  to
their rescue, banks often drive them  to  litigation  leading  them  extreme
penury.  Assuming that the  bank  is  right,  but  once  an  authority  like
District Forum takes a view,  the bank should graciously  accept  it  rather
than going in for further litigation  and  even  to  the  level  of  Supreme
Court.   Driving  poor  gramins  to  various  litigative  forums  should  be
strongly deprecated because they  have  also  to  spend  large  amounts  for
conducting litigation.   We condemn this type of practice, unless the  stake
is very high or the matter affects large number  of  persons  or  affects  a
general policy of the Bank which has far reaching consequences.

14.   We, in this case, find no error in the decisions  taken  by  all  fact
finding authorities including the National  Disputes  Redressal  Commission.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- to be  paid  by
the  bank  to  the  first  respondent  within  a  period   of   one   month.
Resultantly, the Bank now has to spend altogether Rs.25,950/-  for  a  claim
of Rs.15,000/-, apart from to  and  fro  travelling  expenses  of  the  Bank
officials.    Let God save the Gramins.





                                  …………………………………….........J.
                                  (K.S. Radhakrishnan)








                                  ………………………………………………J.
                                  (Dipak Misra)


      New Delhi,
      September 4, 2012