JUSTICE V. K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The complainant took the loan of Rs. 29,40,000/- from the appellant Bank for setting up a poly house. He also claims to have spent an amount of Rs. 10 lakhs from his own pocket in the construction of the poly house alongwith flower pots, plants etc. As per the agreement between the parties, the borrower was required to keep the poly house etc. in insured nature against loss or damage by fire and other risks, as might be required by the Bank and deliver the insurance policies to the bank. The agreement between the parties provided that it shall be lawful, though not obligatory, for the bank to insure the security items by debiting the amount of insurance premium to the account of the borrower. (2) On 08.01.2012, the poly house of the complainant got damaged in heavy snowfall. The total loss sustained by the complainant is alleged to be Rs. 27,13,200/-. The complainant informed the bank about the damage caused to his assets. The appellant bank informed the complainant that though insurance for the first year had been taken, the same had not been renewed by the Oriental Insurance Company for the second year, as intimated by them, vide their letter dated 17.02.2011, because the agreement between the bank and the Insurance company did not provide for insurance of poly houses. The case of the complainant is that the aforesaid letter dated 17.02.2011 was never delivered to him and that had he been intimated that the Insurance Company had refused to insure the poly house, they would have made arrangements for the insurance with some other Insurance Company. The complainant, alleging deficiency in the services provided by the bank, filed a complaint seeking refund of sum of Rs. 27,13,200/- towards damages to the poly house, Rs. 5 lakhs on account of negligence, deficiency in service, mental torture etc. and interest on the loss amount at the rate of 24% per annum. (3) The complainant was resisted by the Bank primarily on the ground that since the complainant had failed to keep the assets insured, they were not liable to pay any amount to him. The case of the Bank before the State Commission was that they were under no obligation to get the security of the complainant insured. (4) A perusal of clause 5 of the first schedule to the hypothecation agreement clearly shows that the Bank was under no legal obligation to insure the securities hypothecated with it and it was primarily for the borrower to get the same insured against loss of damage by fire and other risks. However, the aforesaid clause also permitted the Bank to obtain policy for insuring the hypothecation against loss of damage by fire or other risks and debit the amount of premium for insurance to the account of the borrower. It is an admitted case that the Insurance policy for the first year was taken by the Bank and not by the borrower. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Bank had taken the Insurance policy on the instruction of the borrower, but he is unable to show to us any document from the borrower requiring the Bank to obtain the aforesaid policy. Therefore, we have no option, but to conclude that the policy was taken by the Bank of its own, in exercise of its right under clause 5 of the first schedule to the hypothecation agreement. Since, the insurance policy for the first year was taken by the Bank and admittedly the said policy remained with the Bank, it is only the Bank, which knew when the policy was going to expire. There is no material on record to show that even the copy of the aforesaid policy was sent by the Bank to the borrower, at any time before the damage to the poly house took place. Therefore, the complainant was not even aware as to from which Insurance Company, the policy was taken by the Bank and what was the date, on which it was going to expire. In these circumstances, when the policy was taken by the Bank, it remained in the custody of the Bank and its copy was never sent to the borrower, the obligation would be of the Bank to get the policy renewed from time to time, though it would be entitled to debit the amount of the Insurance premium to the account of the borrower. This may not be a contractual obligation, but would nevertheless be expected from the Bank, on account of its having taken the policy in the first year and having not sent a copy of the said policy to the borrower, thereby giving him no occasion to get the policy renewed. (5) It is an admitted case of the appellant bank that it had received a letter dated 17.02.2011 from the Oriental Insurance Company informing the Bank that they had made representation to the higher office for giving them necessary guidelines/instructions with regard to insurance of the poly house units in Shimla as the risk fell under ot provided forcategory of the internal guide fire tariff, before they would accept any proposal for insurance of the poly house. Thus, Oriental Insurance Company clearly indicated that at that stage they were not accepting any proposals for insurance of poly house in District Shimla. It was the duty of the appellant Bank to send the copy of the aforesaid letter dated 17.02.2011 to the complainant with a request to him to obtain the policy from some other Insurance Company. However, there is no material on record to show that any copy of the letter dated 17.02.2011 was sent by the appellant Bank to the complainant. There is no material on record to show that any letter was sent by the Bank to the complainant informing him that the Oriental Insurance Company had declined to accept the proposal for insurance of his poly house and therefore it should make alternate arrangements for the insurance of the security assets. In our opinion, this was a clear cut case of deficiency in providing services to the complainant, who was its consumer. The appellant Bank, in our opinion, should either have sent the letter of Oriental Insurance Company dated 17.02.2011 to the complainant with a request to him to make alternate arrangements for obtaining insurance for his poly house or it should have written separately to the complainant, requesting him to make his own arrangements for the insurance of the security assets, since the Oriental Insurance Company with which the first policy was taken was no more interested in insuring the said assets. (6) As regards the quantum of compensation, we find that the State Commission having noted that the complainant had incurred expenditure of Rs. 2,83,500/- in partly restoring the poly house, awarded compensation only to the extent of Rs. 1,41,750/-. In fact, the total estimate for restoring the poly house comes to Rs. 7,63,200/-. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Commission cannot be said to be excessive on the higher side. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that under clause 5 of the hypothecation agreement, the Bank has an option to apply the insurance proceeds towards replacement of the society or towards the satisfaction of the Bank dues. We fail to understand how this clause can be of any help to the appellant, since compensation being awarded by the State Commission would not be the insurance proceeds. No amount has come to the borrower from the Insurance Company and therefore, this clause would be applicable. (7) For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is dismissed.