By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member:

The gist of the case is as follows:

The Complainant has purchased a cow for earning his livelihood. The purchase of cow was financed by the Opposite Party to an extent of Rs.15,000/-. The period of loan was five years and the bank insured the cow and assured to pay the premium from the loan remittance for the period of loan. The 1^st insurance premium was remitted by the bank.

2. On 31.12.2006 the cow was killed by wild animal and the postmortem report was produced before the Opposite Party. For filing the insurance claim, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party for the insurance policy . Then the Opposite Party revealed that they have omitted to pay the premium and renew the policy. Due to this deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party, the Complainant has suffered loss and damages of Rs. 10,000/-.    The Opposite Party represented to the Complainant that the matter was informed to the Head office of the Opposite Party and Complainant was excluded from remitting the loan amount. But later the Opposite Party sent for the Complainant and demanded the repayment of loan. Therefore, the Complainant prays for an order directing the Opposite Party to exclude the Complainant from loan remittance and to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

3. The Opposite Party appeared and filed version. The Opposite Party state that the petitioner and his wife have signed a memorandum of agreement for Agricultural loan on 20.5.2005. As per this agreement, the borrower agrees to keep the hypothecated goods insured. The Opposite Party admits that the original insurance premium was levied from the loan amount as done in all cases. The original insurance coverage was for the period 21.7.2005 to 20.07.2006. The Petitioner did not turned up after 27.05.2006.

4. The official of the bank Sri. Joseph had visited Complainant's premises on 08.05.2006. The Complainant admitted that the cow was sold. But he assured to repay the loan during the next crop season. Therefore there was no occasion for the Complainant to renew the insurance or loan. Then the Complainant had sent a lawyer notice informing the Opposite Party that the cow was killed by wild animal. There is callous negligence on the part of the Complainant in not taking care of the cow and also in renewing the insurance. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party. Since the petitioner has represented that the cow is sold for valuable consideration it was made clear that he lost interest to renew the insurance. The Bank has not given any assurance to write off the loan and the allegation that the subject matter was taken up before Head Office is imaginary and made for substantiating the claim of the Petitioner. The Opposite Party demanded repayment of the loan as agreed and the Complainant is legally liable to repay it. The Complaint lacks bonafide and hence is to be dismissed.

5. PW1 and PW2 were examined on the side of Complainant. Documents were marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A5 on the side of the Complainant. One document the postmortem report of the cow summoned by the Forum from the Veterinary Hospital was marked as Ext.C1. The Opposite Party was examined as OPW1. The ear tag of the cow was marked as MO1. Documents were marked as Ext.B1 to Ext.B3 on the part of the Opposite Party.

6. The points to be considered are as follows:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for any relief?

7. Point No.1:- The Complainant's case is that the Opposite Party assured to pay the premium of insurance from the loan remittance. But no document showing such assurance is produced before the Forum. There is the memorandum of agreement for agricultural loan signed by the Complainant. It is marked as Ext.B1. Ext.B1(a) stipulates that “The borrower promises and agrees to keep the hypothecated goods duly insured for adequate value by valid policy of insurance”. As per clause 14 (b) the bank also retains the right to effect insurance, but is not bound to. But the question is who has the primary responsibility to pay the premium. The Hon'ble National Commission in the case Mr. Ramsaran Vs. Allahabad Bank has held that primarily responsibility rested on Complainant to take insurance cover. It is established fact that banks with a view to ensure repayment of loan amount take up insurance, if the loanee has not taken insurance cover. But the primary responsibility is that of the person who had taken loan. This ruling apply to this case and no liability can be fixed on the bank to pay the premium. Ext.A1 policy is for one year. The Complainant's allegation is that the policy is for five year. Such a policy is not produced before the Forum. For the aforesaid reasons, it is found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

8. Point No.2:- As there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief.

Hence the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of November 2008.

PRESIDENT: Sd/-

MEMBER-I : Sd/-

MEMBER-II: Sd/-

A P P E N D I X

Witnesses for the Complainant:

PW1. Muhammed Rafeek. Complainant.

PW2. K.S. Preman. Veterinary Doctor.

Witnesses for the Opposite Party:

OPW1 Sathyaraj U N. Manager, South Malabar Gramin Bank, Irulam.

Exhibits for the Complainant:

A1.(2 sheets) Policy Schedule.

A2. Copy of Lawyer Notice. dt:10.5.2007

A3. Reply notice.

A4. Pass Book.

A5. Photo.

C1. Postmortem Report dt: 06.01.2007

MO1. Ear Tag.

Exhibits for the Opposite Party:

B1. Agreement.

B1(a) Clause 15 (a) of Memorandum of Agreement for Agricultural Loans.

B2. Copy of Reply notice.

B3. Statement. dt:10.09.2008.