JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER 1. By this order, we propose to dispose of the above noted revision petitions arising out of the impugned order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Rajasthan Jaipur dated 31.03.2014. 2. Briefly stated facts relevant for the disposal of the above revision petitions are that complainant is running a kiryana store under the name and style of Ladu Ram Balkishan, a sole proprietorship concern of Ladu Ram. The said firm has an account with the opposite party bank since 2001. The complainant firm applied for cash credit limit of Rs.5,00,000/- which was sanctioned by the opposite party bank on hypothecation of the stock of the shop. As per the agreement between the parties, the complainant firm was required to take insurance cover of stock under hypothecation with a view to protect the interest of the bank. It is the case of the complainant that pursuant to the agreement, the insurance cover in respect of the shop in question in the name of the complainant was taken and the premium was paid by the bank and debited to the account of the complainant. Thereafter, the opposite party bank continued to get the insurance renewed on year to year basis by paying premium on behalf of the complainant and debiting the same to the account of the complainant. On 17.11.2009, a fire broke out in the shop resulting in the loss of stock worth Rs.5,00,000/-. The complainant filed insurance claim with the insurance company but it was repudiated on the ground that the insurance policy had expired in March 2009 and it was not renewed. The complainant claiming failure of the bank to renew the insurance policy as deficiency in service filed the consumer complaint before the District Forum. 3. The opposite party bank resisted the complaint by filing written statement. The opposite party claimed that as per the terms and conditions of the grant of cash credit limit, it was the responsibility of the firm to keep the hypothecated goods insured. It was further pleaded that after March 2009, insurance policy could not be renewed because the complainant firm had not submitted the statement of available stock and its balance sheet ending March 2009. 4. Learned District Forum on consideration of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence held the bank to be guilty of deficiency in service and directed as under: “Thus, the complaint as filed by the complainant is allowed and the respondent is directed to pay Rs.4,97,029/- (Rs. Four Lakh Ninety Seven Thousand and Twenty Nine only) along with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint that is 13.09.2010 till the date of payment. The complainant is further entitled to get Rs.3000/- towards mental and physical harassment and Rs.1000/- towards cost of proceedings. The respondent is directed to send the above mentioned amount by registered post / account payee cheque at the residential address of the complainant within two months from the date of order.” 5. Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, the opposite party bank preferred appeal no. 681 of 2012. The State Commission on consideration of the terms and conditions of the loan agreement came to the conclusion that both the complainant as well as the opposite party were equally responsible for non renewal of insurance policy. The State Commission thus modified the order of the District Forum and directed that loss sustained by the borrower shall be shared equally by the bank and the complainant. The State Commission quashed the order of the District Forum regarding grant of interest on the compensation awarded as also the compensation awarded for mental agony and harassment. 6. The parties not being satisfied with the order of the State Commission have preferred the above noted revision petitions. 7. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the complainant has contended that the State Commission has committed a grave error in partly accepting the appeal and modifying the order of the District Forum ignoring the fact that opposite party bank undisputedly had been renewing the insurance policy on behalf of the complainant by paying premium to the insurance company and debiting the amount to the account of the complainant firm. Therefore, it was obligation of the opposite party to get the insurance renewed and by failing to do so, the opposite party has committed deficiency in service particularly when no communication was sent to the complainant calling upon him to get his insurance policy renewed. 8. Mr. Vivek Singh, Advocate, learned counsel for the opposite party on the contrary has drawn our attention to the terms and conditions of the agreement for hypothecation of goods entered into between the parties and submitted that as per condition no.5 of the agreement keeping the hypothecated goods insured shall be the responsibility of the borrower and if the borrower fails to effect such insurance on being asked in writing to do so, the bank in its discretion may insure the said goods against fire and debit the premium and other charges to the account of the borrower. Therefore, the bank had no responsibility to get the insurance policy renewed and as such the State Commission has committed a grave error in holding the bank guilty of deficiency in service. It is further contended by learned counsel for the opposite party that even a letter dated 14.08.2009 was written to the complainant calling upon him to take steps to get the insurance for equal value of the stock of goods kept at his godown / shop under intimation to the bank. Despite that the complainant did not get the goods insured and for this bank cannot be faulted. Lastly, it is contended that neither the District Forum nor the State Commission has appreciated that the consumer complaint itself is not maintainable because the petitioner is not covered under the definition of ‘consumer’ as he had availed of services of the bank in relation to commercial purpose i.e. running of kiryana shop. Learned counsel for the opposite party has thus urged us for dismissal of the complaint. 9. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 10. The term ‘consumer’ in relation to hire / availing of service is defined under section 2 (1) (d) (ii) which is reproduced as under: "consumer" means any person who - hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who 'hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purposes.” 11. From the above definition, it is clear that a person who hires any service for consideration is a consumer provided he has not availed of said service free of charge or under a contract of personal service or for any commercial purpose. In the instant case, on perusal of the complaint, it is evident that complainant firm was running a kiryana store and it had availed of cash credit facility for the purpose of running his business. This fact is also evident from the agreement of hypothecation of goods wherein it is clearly mentioned that the cash credit limit for the purpose of facilitating finance to the borrower (complainant) was granted on the request of Ladu Ram , proprietor M/s Ladu Ram Balkishan. From this, it is evident that the service availed by the complainant firm were in relation to the commercial purpose. As such, the petitioner does not fall within the definition of consumer. That being the case, the petitioner had no locus standi to file the consumer complaint. As such, we are of the view that both the foras below have exceeded their jurisdiction in passing the impugned orders against the opposite party bank. The complaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on this count alone. 12. Even on merits the complainant has no case. Clause V of the agreement of hypothecation of goods entered into between the parties deals with the responsibility for keeping the hypothecated goods insured. The relevant portion of the aforesaid clause is reproduced thus: “That the said goods shall be kept by the Borrowers (s) in good condition at his / their risk and expense. Further, when required by the Bank all goods the subject of this Agreement shall be insured against fire by the Borrower (s) at his/their expenses in the joint names of the Borrowers(s) and the Bank in some Insurance Office approved by the Bank to the extent of least 10% in excess of the amount advanced by the Bank against them and that the insurance policy (ies) shall be delivered to and held by the Bank. If the Borrower(s) fail(s) to effect such insurance on being asked in writing to do so the Bank may insure the said goods against fire in such joint names and debit the premium and other charges to such account as aforesaid in and the event of the Bank being at any time apprehensive that the safety of the goods is likely to be endangered owing to riot or strike, it shall on failure by the Borrower(s) so to do after request by the Bank at its discretion itself insure the same in such joint names against any damages arising therefrom the cost of such extra insurance being payable by the Borrower(s) and being debited to such account as aforesaid.” 13 On reading of the above, it is clear that as per the agreement it was not mandatory to get the hypothecated goods insured. The above clause provides that whenever required by the bank, it was obligation of the borrower i.e. complainant to get the hypothecated goods insured in the joint names of the borrower and the bank to the extent of 10% in excess of the amount advanced by the bank. The above clause provides that in the event of the failure of the borrower to effect insurance, the bank may get the goods insured against the fire and debit the premium and other charges to the account of the borrower. The use of word ‘may’ makes it clear that the bank was not under obligation to get the stock insured but it had the option to do so and debit the premium amount to the account of the complainant. Thus, it is clear that as per the agreement between the parties, bank did not have any responsibility to get the insurance renewed as such, it cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service for failure to get the insurance policy renewed. It may be added that opposite party has placed on record a letter dated 14.08.2009 addressed to the complainant firm calling upon the firm to get the insurance for the equal value of the stock of the goods kept at their godown / shop. Despite that the complainant did not take steps to renew the insurance policy or getting the new policy. Therefore, now the complainant cannot shift blame for loss of goods in fire on the opposite party bank. 14. In view of the discussion above, we are of the opinion that the opposite party bank cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service. Accordingly, revision petition No. 2643 of 2014 filed by the opposite party is allowed and the impugned orders of the foras below are set aside. Revision petition No. 2608 of 2014 filed by the complainant is dismissed. Both the revision petitions are disposed of accordingly. | 
