This revision petition is directed against the order dated 22.06.2018 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal no. 262 of 2018. 2. The goods of the complainant which had been hypothecated with the UCO Bank (Petitioner in RP No. 2794 of 2018) were destroyed in a fire at a stage when the insurance policy cover under the same had been lapsed and had not been renewed. It was the case of the complainant that earlier, the policy was got issued and also renewed by the Bank itself by way of deducting the requisite premium from the complainant’s own Bank account and passed it to the insurance company, but the same was not done in the relevant year and even the complainant was not informed that the policy was lapsed on 30.12.2012. He therefore, alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Bank to whom the goods have been hypothecated and his complaint was dismissed by the learned District Forum. In appeal, the learned State Commission granted 50% of the loss amount to the complainant by holding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the UCO Bank in not having got the insurance policy renewed in time, not having taken steps to ask the complainant in time to have the same renewed. Learned counsel for the petitioner Bank has relied upon the larger Bench decision of this Commission in FA Nos.114 and 123 of 2015. The three Member Bench constituted to answer the following issues: - Whether the primary duty to obtain insurance policy and its renewal of the borrower under the loan sanctioned letter and the hypothecation agreement is obliterated, if for some period the bank had obtained insurance policy?
- Whether not obtaining insurance policy in subsequent year, although it was obtained in previous year by the Bank, amounts to deficiency in service of the Bank?
3. After having noted in paragraph 8 of its relevant order, the terms and conditions of the hypothecation loan agreement entered between the parties, which provided that the complainant was not absolved from its liability to obtain the insurance policy in subsequent year, even if the Bank had taken insurance policy in any previous year. The relevant clause in the hypothecation of goods arrived between the parties in the present case is as follows: “That the hypothecated goods shall be insured against fire risk by the Borrowers in some insurance office or offices approved by the Bank and in the name and for the sole benefit of the Bank for their full market value and that the borrowers will on demand deliver to the Bank all policies for an the receipts for premia paid on such insurance endorsed and assigned with the full benefit thereof in favour of the Bank. Should the borrowers fail to so insure or fail to deliver the policies or receipts for premia duly endorsed as aforesaid three days after demand the Bank shall be at liberty, though not bound to effect such insurance at the expenses of the borrowers. The borrowers further agree that the Bank shall be at liberty at any time at its discretion (without being bound to do so) to insure the securities for their full market value against riot and civil commotion risk or any other type of insurance risk at the expenses of the borrowers with any insurance company”. 4. The above terms and conditions are very similar to those referred to by the larger Bench in the aforesaid judgment. The larger Bench answered the question raised in the said appeal by observing inter alia: 9. Supreme Court in Bharathi Knitting Company Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Air Freight limited, (1996) 4 SCC 704, held that when there is a specific talk in the contract the parties are bound by the terms in the contract. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, (2004) 8 SCC 644, Vikram Greentech India Ltd. V. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., (2009) 5 SCC 599 and Export Credit Guaratee Corporation of India Limited Vs. Garg Sons International, (2014) 1 SCC 686, held that it is not permissible for the court to substitute the terms of the contract itself, under the garb of construing terms incorporated in the agreement of insurance. No exceptions can be made on the ground of equity. The liberal attitude adopted by the court, by way of which it interferes in the terms of an insurance agreement, is not permitted. The same must certainly not be extended to the extent of substituting words that were never intended to form a part of the agreement. In view of the aforesaid discussions out answer to the above issues are as follows:- 1. Under the loan sanction letter and the hypothecation agreement, the primary duty to obtain insurance policy and its renewal was of the borrower. This obligation of the borrower is not obliterated and shifted upon the bank, if in any year, the bank had obtained insurance policy. 2. The bank has not committed any deficiency in service, in not obtaining insurance policy or its renewal in subsequent year, although it had obtained insurance policy in previous year, as per contract between the parties”. 5. The facts and circumstances of the present case are squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the larger Bench which held that the obligation of the borrower is not obliterated and shifted upon the Bank, if in any year, it had obtained insurance policy and that the Bank has not committed any deficiency in service in not obtaining the insurance policy or its renewal in any subsequent year, although it had obtained such policy in any of the previous year, as per the contract between the parties. 6. Consequently, this Commission finds merit in the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner Bank. Accordingly, revision petition no.2794 of 2018 is therefore, allowed while revision petition no.2735 of 2018 filed on behalf of the complainant is dismissed. The impugned order of the learned State Commission is set aside. No order as to cost. 7. The security amount of 50% of the awarded amount which was ostensibly deposited by the petitioner Bank in compliance of the earlier order dated 8th October 2018 may therefore, be also refunded to the Bank along with interest accrued thereupon. | 
