JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL)

            The petitioner in this revision petition is seeking to challenge the order of the State Commission Uttarakhand, whereby the State Commission concurred with the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal resulting in dismissal of consumer complaint filed by the petitioner.

2.         Briefly stated facts of the case are that petitioner is proprietor of M/s Ganesh Trading Company.  He took cash credit limit of Rs.3,00,000/- from Punjab National Bank, Haridwar Road, Rishikesh for his business.  The complainant also hypothecated his stock with the bank and also mortgaged the property belonging to his wife with the bank.  According to the complainant, as per the agreement the stock was to be insured by the insurance company approved by the bank and it was obligation of the bank to pay the premium of insurance policy and debit to the account of the complainant.  On 06.12.2010 a burglary allegedly took place in the complainant’s shop and goods worth Rs.2,49,500/- was stolen.  Insurance claim of the complainant was rejected on the ground that policy had already lapsed because of non payment of insurance premium.  The complainant, thereafter, approached the Bank for the needful but no relief was granted.  The complainant filed the consumer complaint in the District Forum.

3.         Consumer complaint was resisted by the opposite party on the ground that as per the terms of agreement, bank was not under an obligation to insure the stock in trade of complainant.  District Forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the record, dismissed the complaint.

4.         Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the petitioner approached the State Commission in appeal.  The State Commission relying upon clause 7 (a) of the agreement between the petitioner and the bank dismissed the appeal.  Relevant observations of the State Commission are reproduced as under:

“7(a) That all the security as aforesaid wherever situate shall be insured by the Borrowers against fire risk and as and when required by the Bank against the war, riots and civil commotion risks and/or risk of any other description with some insurance company approved by the Bank to the full market value of such security in each case irrespective of the balance due against the Borrowers, and that the said policies shall be taken out in the name of the Bank or in the joint names of the Bank and the Borrowers with the Bank clause and that all policies and receipts for premia paid on such insurances shall be delivered to the Bank. Should the Borrowers fail on demand being made by the Bank to insure or to deliver the policies or receipts for premia as aforesaid, the Bank shall be at liberty, but not bound to effect such insurance at the risk, responsibility and the cost of the Borrowers in such insurance companies as the Bank in its absolute and unfettered discretion thinks fit and to an extent of the full market value of the security of which the Bank shall be the sole judge. Provided, however, that in the event of so insuring the security the Bank shall not be considered responsible or liable for the non admission of the claims of the Bank or their non-payment wholly or partly by such insurance company for the omission to insure or deficiency of insurance and the ultimate liability of the Borrowers of the Bank shall continue notwithstanding such failure or non admission as foresaid. All such  expenses when incurred by the Bank, shall form part of the principal amount due and be debited to the Borrowers account and will carry interest at the rate applicable to the account. Further, that all the sums received under any such insurance as aforesaid shall be received by the Bank of applied or towards the liquidation of the balance due to the Bank for the time being and in  the event of there being a surplus, the Bank shall be entitled to appropriate such surplus as provided in clause 17 of this agreement.”

5.         The complainant has contended that impugned order of the State Commission is erroneous for the reason that State Commission has failed to appreciate that it was obligation and responsibility of the opposite party bank to keep the insurance alive. It is further contended that State Commission also ignored the fact that after the theft was reported, the bank in order to evade its responsibility paid the insurance premium and debited the same to the account of the complainant.   There is no merit in the above contention.  The petitioner had obtained cash credit limit from the opposite party / bank under an agreement.  Clause 7 (a) of the agreement deals with the aspect of  person responsible for keeping the stock in trade on the petitioner’s shop alive.  On reading of the said clause, which is reproduced in the extract of the order of the State Commission detailed above, it is clear that the primary  obligation to get the stock and shop insured was on the petitioner.  The clause, however, confers discretion on the opposite party to get the insurance cover in the event of failure of the petitioner / complainant to take the insurance cover and debit the amount of insurance premium so paid to the cash credit account of the petitioner.  It is clearly mentioned in clause 7 (a) of the agreement that it shall be responsibility of the complainant borrower to take insurance cover and in the event of failure of the borrower to take insurance cover, the bank may in its own discretion obtain the insurance cover and debit the insurance premium to the account of the borrower. Clause clearly mentions that the bank, however, is not bound to effect such insurance.  The State Commission in view of the aforesaid clause of contract between the parties have held that the opposite party / bank was not deficient in service.  Order of the State Commission is well reasoned and it cannot be faulted.

6.         Otherwise also, the consumer complaint is not maintainable because admittedly the petitioner had taken the cash credit limit from the opposite party for his business purpose.  Therefore, the petitioner is not covered under the definition of ‘consumer’ as envisaged under section 2 (1 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 because he admittedly hired / availed services of the respondent / bank  for commercial purpose.

7.         In view of the discussion above, I do not find any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the orders of foras below, which may call for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is, accordingly, dismissed.