Supreme Court of India
State Bank Of India vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd on 7 February, 2020Author: Hon’Ble Dr. Chandrachud

Bench: Hon’Ble Dr. Chandrachud, Hon’Ble Ms. Malhotra




Civil Appeal No. 1234 of 2020
(Arising out of SLP(C) No 13380 of 2019)

State Bank of India and Anr …. Appellant(s)


New India Assurance Company Limited ….Respondent(s)


Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

1 Leave granted.

2 This appeal arises from a judgment and order of the National

Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 in a first appeal from a

judgment and order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal

Commission, Andhra Pradesh2.

3 On 14 November 2005, a loan agreement was entered into between

the first appellant – State Bank of India 3 and the second respondent4.

Under the terms of the agreement, all the assets which were charged to

the Bank were to be insured by the borrower. In pursuance of the loan
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Date: 2020.02.10
18:04:55 IST
agreement, an insurance cover was obtained by the Bank on behalf of the

4 “Borrower”

borrower in pursuance of an arrangement which it had with the insurer. A

fire took place on the premises of the borrower on 15 February 2007. The

insurer not having accepted the claim, the second respondent filed a

consumer complaint before the SCDRC. By an order dated 17 November

2014, the SCDRC allowed the complaint in the following terms:

“In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party
no.1 and 2 are directed to forward the claim of the
complainant to the opposite party no.3 and the opposite party
no.3 to process the claim in accordance with law. The
opposite party no.3 shall pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards
compensation together with costs of Rs.7,000/-. Time for
compliance four weeks.”

Thus, by the above order of the SCDRC, the Bank was directed to forward

the claim of the insured to the insurer. The insurer was, in turn, directed to

process the claim in accordance with law. No liability to pay compensation

was fastened on the Bank.

4 This order of the SCDRC was not challenged either by the borrower

or by the Bank. The first appeal before the NCDRC was filed by the

insurer who is the first respondent to the present proceedings. By an order

dated 6 February 2019, the NCDRC allowed the appeal by making the

Bank liable to pay the claim of the borrower, together with interest at the

rate of 9% per annum. That has given rise to the present appeal.

5 Mr Ramesh P Bhatt, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of

the appellants, submits that against the order passed by the SCDRC, no

appeal was filed by the borrower. The only direction of the SCDRC was for

the Bank to forward the claim to the insurer so that it could be in

accordance with law. Yet, it has been submitted, that in the appeal which

was filed by the insurer against the above direction of the SCDRC, the

NCDRC has held the Bank liable. Mr Bhatt submitted that this is contrary

to law since the borrower had accepted the order of the SCDRC.

Moreover, it has been submitted that in the course of the proceedings

which arose from the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets

and Enforcement of Security Interest Act 2002, a settlement was arrived at

between the Bank and the borrower in terms of which a ‘No Dues’

Certificate was issued by the Bank on 12 June 2017. The borrower, it has

been submitted, had, on affidavit, agreed to withdraw all claims as against

the Bank. Hence, it has been submitted that as between the borrower and

the Bank, there could be no valid basis in law to direct the Bank to pay the

amount of the claim to the borrower.

6 On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the insurer by Mr

Varinder Kumar Sharma, learned counsel that the claim which was

submitted by the borrower was belated. The NCDRC has found that the

claim was submitted nearly six and a half years after the incident of the fire

which took place on 15 February 2007. Hence, it has been submitted that

the NCDRC was justified in coming to the conclusion that the claim was

time barred. Insofar as the borrower is concerned, the fact that there has

been a one time settlement with the Bank is not in dispute. However, Mr

Seshatalpa Sai Bandaru, learned counsel for the borrower disputed that

the borrower had filed an affidavit withdrawing all claims.

7 Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

contesting parties, it has emerged from the record that the order of the

SCDRC was accepted by the borrower. The only direction of the SCDRC

was for the Bank to forward the insurance claim to the insurer. As

between the Bank and the borrower, there has been a one time settlement.

The Bank had issued a communication on 10 February 2017 to the

borrower in pursuance of which an affidavit was filed by the borrower on 31

May 2017 in the following terms:

“…I am accepting OTS Terms & Conditions and oblige the
same. I further undertake to agree for consent order to be
passed in the Tribunal/Court for which I /We will co-operate to
pass the consent order and in case of failure to attend for
passing the consent order your bank is at liberty to present the
said affidavit in the concerned Tribunal/Court for passing the
consent order. I/Co-borrowers/Directors/Partners/Guarantors
will withdraw all the cases filed by me/us in DRT/High
Court/Any other courts against your bank. If I/we failed to
withdraw the same your bank is at liberty to file the present
affidavit for dismissal/withdrawal of the pending cases. If I/we
failed to comply with any Terms & Conditions of the OTS, your
bank can continue the SARFAESI Proceedings.”

Pursuant thereto, on 12 June 2017, the Bank recorded that it had closed

the loan account on receipt of the amount in terms of the compromise


8 In this background, we see no reason or justification for the NCDRC,

in an appeal by the insurer, to foist the liability on the Bank. The

fundamental point is that the borrower not having challenged the order of

the SCDRC, such a liability could not have been foisted on the Bank by the

NCDRC. The only issue in controversy was the liability of the insurer. The

NCDRC held that the insurer was not liable since the claim was submitted

nearly six and a half years after the incident of fire.

9 For the above reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the

impugned judgment and order of the NCDRC dated 6 February 2019,

which held the Bank liable to compensate the second respondent in

respect of the insurance claim. There shall be no order as to costs.

10 The appellants shall, in pursuance of the present judgment, be at

liberty to withdraw the amount which has been deposited before this Court

in pursuance of the interim order passed pending the disposal of the

present proceedings, together with the interest accrued, if any.

[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

[Indu Malhotra]
New Delhi;
February 07, 2020


Leave a Reply

Sign In


Reset Password

Please enter your username or email address, you will receive a link to create a new password via email.