The Siliguri Circuit Bench of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, chaired by Mr. Kundan Kumar Kumai (Presiding Member) and Mr. Swapan Kumar Das (Member), upheld Canara Bank’s appeal. The Commission determined that Canara Bank had not provided deficient service in its capacity as the financier for the complainant’s stolen motorcycle. Instead, the Commission emphasized that the complainant’s dispute primarily concerned the rejection of his insurance claim by United India Insurance Company Ltd., and Canara Bank could not be held responsible for the insurance-related issues.
Summary of the Case
The complainant had purchased a Hero Super Splendor motorcycle financed by Canara Bank and insured by United India Insurance Company Ltd. On July 20, 2017, the motorcycle was stolen along with its documents from outside Natabari Hospital, located under Tufangunj Police Station, while the complainant was at a nearby stall. The complainant filed a complaint at Tufangunj Police Station the next day but did not specify the theft date in the FIR.
Canara Bank was informed of the theft on July 21, 2018. Subsequently, on August 14, 2017, the Insurance Company requested documentation regarding the delayed reporting of the incident. Upon inquiry, it was found that the police had officially registered the case on August 1, 2017, despite the complainant verbally reporting the theft on July 20, 2017.
The Insurance Company rejected the claim on October 9, 2017, citing the complainant’s failure to promptly report the theft and informing that they were notified of the incident by Canara Bank rather than the complainant.
Feeling aggrieved, the complainant filed a consumer complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Cooch Behar, naming both the Insurance Company and Canara Bank as respondents.
The District Commission ruled in favor of the complainant, directing the Insurance Company to pay the insurance amount and jointly instructing both the Insurance Company and Canara Bank to pay Rs. 10,000 for mental anguish and Rs. 20,000 for service deficiencies. Canara Bank appealed this decision to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Siliguri Circuit Bench, West Bengal.
Findings of the State Commission
The State Commission noted that the complainant’s original grievance was solely against the Insurance Company, with no allegations made against Canara Bank. Therefore, the District Commission’s decision to include Canara Bank in its joint order with the Insurance Company lacked justification. The State Commission found that the District Commission had not provided any rationale linking Canara Bank to the alleged service deficiencies or mental distress suffered by the complainant.
Furthermore, the State Commission clarified that Canara Bank’s role was strictly limited to financing the motorcycle purchase and did not extend to the insurance claim process. The dispute regarding the rejection of the insurance claim was between the complainant and the Insurance Company, and Canara Bank was not directly involved in that aspect.
Consequently, the State Commission concluded that the District Commission’s order needed to be revised regarding Canara Bank’s directives. Therefore, Canara Bank’s appeal was upheld.
