Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMMAN versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' D.M. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ramman v. State Of U.P. Thru' D.M. & Others - WRIT - C No. 65211 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 5161 (28 October 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

RESERVED

Hon. S. K. Singh, J.

By means of this writ petition petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned notice dated 25.8.2005 issued by the respondent bank and there is further prayer that the representation of the petitioner dated 13.2.2003 and 8.7.2003 may be directed to be decided by the respondent no. 3 and 4.

Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel who appeared for the respondent bank and learned State Counsel.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on 27.9.2001 an amount of Rs. 52,000/- was taken by the petitioner from the respondent bank for purchasing two buffalos who after purchase died on 27.9.2002 and 18.1.2003. Submission is that as there was insurance of the buffalos, petitioner placed claim before the insurance company from where the money is to be received and, therefore, petitioner is not liable to pay the amount. Further submission is that in the Consumer  Forum also petitioner has filed a case and the matter is still pending and, therefore, reliefs as prayed in the writ petition has been pressed to be granted by this Court. In support of the submission that petitioner is not liable to pay the loan amount of the bank and it is insurance company who is to pay the amount, various provisions dealing with the payment of the insurance company has been pointed out. It is on the aforesaid premises submission is that petitioner is entitled to get relief.

There is no dispute about the fact that petitioner took the loan in the year 2001 and thereafter no amount has been paid by him to the bank. The main emphasis of the petitioner  for not paying the loan amount appears to be his pending claim before the insurance company and the Consumer Forum. The ground of the petitioner as noted above appears to be totally misconceived. Copy of the written statement/objection filed by the insurance company in the case before the Consumer Forum clearly states that in view of the agreement petitioner was to inform the insurance company about death of buffalos within 24 hours so that officers of the insurance company were to make physical inspection so as to proceed in respect to the claim. It has been clearly stated by the insurance company in para 14 of the written statement that petitioner never informed about the death of the buffalos within 24 hours on account of which no physical verification could take place. In view of the  averment as made in the writ petition also it is clear that in respect to the date of death of buffalos i.e. 27.9.2002 and 18.1.2003 information was given on 13.2.2003. It has been further stated by the insurance company in the written statement that claim preferred by the petitioner has already been rejected on 31.3.2003 and he has been informed accordingly. Thus so far the claim of the petitioner of getting amount from the insurance company is concerned, rightly or wrongly as on today that stood rejected and now even if petitioner may be entitled to get any amount that is  subject to lengthy litigation. So far the claim of the petitioner which is said to be pending in the Consumer Forum is concerned that is also a separate litigation in which petitioner may succeed or not, that is also dependent on future events.

Here is the case where petitioner took the loan and about four years has already passed no amount has been paid to the bank and, therefore, the loan amount which was given by the bank being the public money, the bank is entitled to get the money back. Needless to say that as and when petitioner is to succeed in getting his claimed amount from the insurance company or otherwise that is to be pocketed by him if the loan amount is already paid by him. The litigation in respect to the claim of the  petitioner in two forums i.e. the insurance company and the Consumer Forum may take years and years in its finalisation and thus for an indefinite period the payment of the loan cannot be directed to remain in abeyance. So far the early disposal of the claim of the petitioner in the forums as indicated it is always open for him to pray before those authorities or even from this Court in appropriate writ for expeditious disposal. Thus various grounds as argued by the learned counsel in respect to liability of the insurance company to pay the amount, by placing reliance on various provisions of the concerned Act need not  to be discussed and answered at this stage in this writ petition, for the reasons indicated above. In view of the aforesaid petitioner is not entitled to get any relief, as prayed, in respect to quashing of the notice issued by the respondent bank. So far the relief as claimed by the petitioner for a direction to the respondent no. 3 and 4 to decide his representation dated 13.2.2003 and 8.7.2003 is concernd, that being innocuous petitioner is entitled to get relief as disposal of his representation by speaking order may clear  various issues and various factual aspects may be cleared in that order.

For the reasons indicated above, this writ petition is partly allowed. The first relief in respect to quashing of the impugned notice dated 25.8.2005 (annexure no. 7 to the writ petition) issued by the    respondent bank is hereby declined and thus the writ petition in this respect is hereby dismissed. So far the relief for a direction to the respondent no. 3 and 4 to decide the representation dated 13.2.2003 and 8.7.2003 is concerned a direction   is given to the concerned respondents to attend the petitioner's representation, if any, has been filed and if they are still pending, to be disposed of by speaking order on filing a certified copy of this order along with an application in this respect preferably within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

28.10.2005.

SKS

65211/2005


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.