Prem Narain ORDER
K.S. Chaudhari, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 08.04.2010 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, 'the State Commission') in Complaint No. 27 of 2007- M/s. Jagdamba Eant Udyog v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur & Ors., by which, complaint was partly allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent No. 1 was sanctioned loan by Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2/Appellants by letter dated 7.5.2003 and complainant executed various documents on 7.6.2003 and hypothecated/mortgaged property for repayment of the aforesaid loan. As per loan documents, property was to be insured by Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2, but they failed to get it insured. Complainant availed term loan of Rs. 5.20 lakhs and fixed loan of Rs. 4.65 lakhs for establishing factory and started working. On 8.2.2005, due to heavy snow fall complainant's Eant Bhatta was completely destroyed. Complainant intimated to opposite party on 9.2.2005 and opposite party, instead of paying claim, served notice under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, against which complainant filed writ before Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court but Hon'ble High Court dismissed writ petition vide order dated 22.2.2007. Complainant sustained loss of Rs. 15 lakhs due to damage of its properties and also suffered business loss of Rs. 12 lakhs. Alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties, complainant filed complaint before the State Commission.
3. Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 resisted complaint and admitted grant of loan and execution of documents by complainant but submitted that complaint was barred by limitation, complainant was under obligation to get properties insured and opposite party was not under any obligation to get it insured and complainant was at fault in not getting property insured. It was further denied that on account of heavy snowfall, complainant's property was damaged and sustained loss as claimed in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Opposite party No. 3 resisted complaint and submitted that he has been impleaded party unnecessarily as no insurance cover was taken from him and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4. Learned State Commission, after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 to pay Rs. 4,80,000/- as compensation, Rs. 15,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses with 9% p.a. interest and dismissed complaint against opposite party No. 3, against which this appeal has been filed.
5. None appeared for respondent No. 1 even after service of notice and he was proceeded ex-parte.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record.
7. Learned counsel for Appellants submitted that inspite of complaint being barred by limitation and inspite of no obligation on the part of opposite party Nos. 1 & 2 to get complainant's property insured, learned State Commission committed error in allowing complaint; hence appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that no liability has been fastened on him.
8. Perusal of the record reveals that as per complaint, loss to the property occurred due to heavy snowfall on 8.2.2005 whereas complaint has been filed on 9.10.2007, meaning thereby complaint has been filed after 2 years and 8 months. In para-19 of the complaint, complainant has mentioned that complaint has been filed within limitation from the date of order passed by Hon'ble High Court giving liberty to the complainant to recover its loss from opposite parties.
9. Hon'ble High Court in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 248 of 2007- M/s. Jagdamba Eant Udhyog v. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur & Ors., passed order on 12.7.2007 with direction to the petitioner (complainant) that if they want to sell the property in the market to the buyer of this choice, they may do so within three months. In res........