GURGAON GRAMIN BANKversusSMT. KHAZANI & ANR.

                   [2012] 8 S.C.R. 225


               GURGAON GRAMIN BANK                           A
                            v.
                  SMT. KHAZANI & ANR.
             (Civil Appeal No. 6261 of 2012)

                  SEPTEMBER 4, 2012
                                                             B
   [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]

      Insurance - Purchase of buffalo after taking loan from
Bank -Insurance of buffalo for Rs. 150001- through Bank -
Insurance claim not heeded to - Complaint before District C
Consumer Forum - Claim allowed with Rs. 30001- cost - Bank
approaching State Commission - Appeal rejected - Banks'
revision petition before National Commission a/so rejected
- On appeal, held: Courts jurisdiction not to be invoked for
trivial matters unless serious questions of law of general D
importance or a question which affects large number of
persons arise or the stakes are very high - In the instant case
no important question of law is to be decided - The Gamin
Bank should stand for the benefit of the gramins and not to
drag them to various litigative forums - For an amount of Rs. E
 150001- the Bank has spent on litigation more than Rs.
25,0001- - Appeal dismissed - Cost of Rs. 10000 imposed
on the Bank to be paid to the claimant.

     The first respondent took a loan from the appellant-
Bank to purchase a buffalo and the same was insured for      F
Rs. 15000/- with the second respondent-Insurance
Company. On the death of the buffalo, when her
insurance claim through the Bank was not heeded to,
she filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum. The complaint was allowed. Bank's           G
appeal to State Commission was dismissed. Bank
approached National Commission, by filing Revision
Petition, which was dismissed. Hence the present appeal
was filed before this Court. On the query of this Court,
                           225                               H
    226       SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2012) 8 S.C.R.


A the Bank filed an affidavit stating that the amount spent
  on the dispute relating to this case by the Bank was Rs.
  12,950/-.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court
B        HELD: 1. 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. The manner in which those
C types of matters are being brought to courts even at the
   level of Supreme Court of India is disturbing. This case
  falls in that category. The issues raised before this Court
  are purely questions of facts examined by the three
  forums including the National Disputes Redressal
D Commission and there is no important question of law to
   be decided by the Supreme Court. 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. [Paras 2 and 12) (228-B-C; 232-B]
E
        2. 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.
F 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 to
  extreme penury. Assuming that the bank is right, but once
G 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
H
   GURGAON GRAMIN BANK v. KHAZANI & ANR.                   227


large amounts for conducting litigation. This type of              A
practice is condemnned 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. [Para 13] [232-C-F]
                                                                   B
     3. There is no error in the decisions taken by all fact-
find in g 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. The          C
Bank 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. [Para 14] [232-G-H]

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6261 of 2012.                                                      D

    Form the Judgment & Order dated 25.11.2009 of the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
Delhi in Revision No. 4098/2009.

    Anil Grover, Noopur Singhal, Arun Kumar Beriwal for the        E
Appellant.

    S.L. Gupta, M.S. Mangla, Mala Dubey, Ram Ashrey, Shalu
Sharma, Chander Shekhar Ashri for the Respondents.
                                                                   F
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     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        G
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       H
    228       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012) 8 S.C.R.


A 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
B 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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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.

H         5. Smt. Khazani then filed a complaint bearing No.825 of
   GURGAON GRAMIN BANK v. KHAZANI & ANR.                    229
         [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]

2004 before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,             A
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
                                                                    8
    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        C
    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.                  D
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                   E
    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          F
    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    G
    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        H
    230        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 8 S.C.R.


A   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
B
          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
c         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
D         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.
E 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
F 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.
G
        Bank will file affidavit within four weeks with regard to the
        amount spent for this litigation.

        List after four weeks."

H       9. The Chief Manager of the bank in compliance with this
   GURGAON GRAMIN BANK v. KHAZANI & ANR.                    231
         [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
order filed an affidavit with regard to the amount spent for       A
litigation so far in a chart form which is reproduced hereunder:

  s.     Forum/Courts        Amount of     Misc.    Total
  No.                        Legal Fees    expenses
                                                                   B
  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
                                                                   c
 Total                                                  12,950/-

      10. The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill D
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/- E
, 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 F
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/-.
                                                                    G
      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,
                                                                    H
    232       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 8 S.C.R.


A 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
B by the Supreme Court. In our view, these types of litigation
  should be discouraged and message should also go, otherwise
  for au trivial and silly matters people will rush to this court,
          13. Gramin Bank like the appellant should stand for the
c 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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.
H K.K.T.                                         Appeal dismissed.