Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL     APPEAL     NO.     6261     OF     2012   

@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8875/2010

Gurgaon Gramin Bank    .. Appellants

Versus

Smt. Khazani & Anr. .. Respondents

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

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 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  

1

Page 2

over-burdened,  naturally  causes  delay  in  adjudication  of  disputes.  

Mediation centers opened in various parts of our country have, to some  

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 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 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 on an issue  

on  which  no  question  of  law  arises  for  consideration.   Facts  are  as  

follows:

2

Page 3

Smt.  Khazani,  the  first  respondent  had  availed  of  a  loan  from  the  

appellant  bank  to  purchase  a  buffalo  and  the  same  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 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 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.   

5. Smt.  Khazani  then  filed  a  complaint  bearing  No.825  of  2004  

before  District  Consumer  Disputes  Redressal  Forum,  Gurgaon.   The  

3

Page 4

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  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  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.  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 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  given by the field officer of the opposite party No.1, the  

4

Page 5

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  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 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  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  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  order.  Dismissed.”

5

Page 6

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.  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 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.   

Bank will file affidavit within four weeks with regard to  the amount spent for this litigation.   

List after four weeks.”

9. The Chief Manager of the bank in compliance with this order filed  

an affidavit  with regard to the amount spent for litigation so far in a  

chart form which is reproduced hereunder:

6

Page 7

S.No. Forum/Courts Amount  of  Legal Fees

Misc.  expenses

Total

1. In  District  Forum

2,200/- 200/- 2,400/-

2. In State Forum 1,750/- 300/- 2,050/- 3. In  Supreme  

Court of India 7,500/- 1000/- 8,500/-

Total 12,950/-

10. The Chief Manager stated in the affidavit that no bill 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/-,  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 compensation for the  

harassment caused to Smt. Khazani.  Adding this amount, the cost goes  

7

Page 8

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/-.   

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, 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 by the Supreme Court.  In our view, 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.   

13. 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  

8

Page 9

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 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 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  

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  with  cost  of  

Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the bank to the first respondent within a period  

9

Page 10

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.

…………………………………….........J. (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

………………………………………………J. (Dipak Misra)

New Delhi, September 4, 2012

10