LALIT NARAIN CHAUHAN vs BALLIA ETWASH GRAMIN & ORS.

Counsel for the petitioner heard.

Sh. Lalit Narain Chauhan, the complainant, who is a businessman, took Cash Credit Loan of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Ballia Etwash Gramin Bank, OP1 and its functionaries OP2 & OP3 against hypothecation. Insurance was obtained about the said hypothecated goods. On the night of 24-25 July, 2008, the shop of the complainant caught fire due to electric short circuit. It transpired that the premium was not paid and therefore the claim of the complainant was rejected by the insurance company and the Bank.

We have gone through the agreement of hypothecation to secure demand cash credit against the goods. Its para No.5 runs as follows :- " 5. The Borrowers shall at their own expense keep the hypothecated goods in good condition and keep the same insured in the names of Bank, and the Borrowers against fire and also if required by the Bank against riots and civil commotion with same insurance office approved by the Bank for the full market value of such goods and shall deliver to the Bank the policy or policies for such insurance and the receipts for the premia paid, therefore, if the Borrowers shall fail so to keep the hypothecated goods insured as aforesaid or to deliver the policy or policies or the receipts for premia to the Bank shall be at liberty but not be bound to affect the said insurance in the Bank''s own name and debit to the said Cash Credit Account all expenses incurred by the Bank in so doing. All moneys received under any such insurance shall be employed in or towards satisfaction of the moneys secured by the hypothecated goods".

The learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant vehemently argued that after the incident, the premium was deposited by the OPs themselves. He has invited our attention towards the letter dated 29.11.2008, which runs as follows :- " Sir,

You were asked again and again to get done the insurance of loan account, but you did not submit any information to the Bank that you have got done the insurance or not. As the loan of Bank is outstanding, therefore, insurance has been got done by the Bank on 28.07.2008 for the security of Bank loan".

Counsel for the petitioner/complainant submitted that the statements prepared by the Bank clearly go to show that the Bank always paid the premium and they have got no concern with it. Counsel for the petitioner also cited an authority in support of his case, titled Indian

Overseas Bank Vs. Ms. Sheba & Anr., I (2014) CPJ 262 (NC). Counsel for the petitioner further submits that no documentary evidence was filed by the Bank, the policy was not handed over to the complainant and a surveyor was not appointed after the occurrence of the incident, to assess the loss.

However, the counsel for the petitioner could not show that these questions were raised in the complaint itself. The arguments urged by the counsel for the petitioner are not bolstered by evidence. The agreement has got paramount importance. It is the duty of the complainant to find out, whether, the premium amount has been paid or not. The bank cannot be held liable for this default. Even if the bank is paying the amount, on previous occasions, it is the bounden duty of the complainant to see to it that the premium stands paid, every year. The order of the State Commission cannot be faulted. The petitioner has no bone to pluck with the OP. Thus, the revision petition is dismissed.