PER JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision is directed against the order dated 17.05.2012 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Haryana ( in short, ‘the State Commission’) dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner / complainant against the order of the District Consumer Forum Rohtak dismissing the complaint. 2. Briefly put relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that M/s Rahul Electricals filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the respondents State Bank of India as also the Oriental Insurance Company Limited claiming that the complainant was engaged in the business of electrical goods. Complainant had obtained a cash credit limit of Rs.3 lakhs from the respondent / bank against the hypothecation of the stock. It is the case of the complainant that as per the agreement, the stock of the complainant was required to be insured and the opposite party / bank had agreed to get the stock insured on behalf of the complainant and debit the insurance premium to the cash credit account of the complainant. Pursuant to the agreement, the opposite party / bank had been getting the stock insured with the insurance company and the last insurance was for the period w.e.f. 25th May 2006 to 24th May, 2007. It is alleged in the complaint that after 24th May, 2007, the opposite party / bank failed to renew the insurance. Unfortunately on 30.05.2007 the shop of the complainant caught fire due to electrical spark and the entire stock was destroyed. The complaint in this regard was lodged at PS Rohtak City vide DD No.46 dated 31.05.2007. The complainant approached the opposite party / bank to disclose the name of the insurance company with whom he had got the stock insured. The opposite party bank after evading the issue for sometime, ultimately replied that as per the agreement, the insurance was to be got done by the complainant himself. Claimant alleging the failure of the bank to renew the insurance of the stock as deficiency in service filed complaint before the District Forum claiming compensation of Rs.6,27, 870/- on account of loss suffered due to fire accident besides Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental pain and agony. The complainant also sought direction to the opposite party bank to stop charging interest on the over draft w.e.f. 25.05.2007. 3. The opposite party bank contested the complaint and took the plea that stock hypothecated with the bank were to be insured comprehensively for the market value by the complainant in joint names of the bank and the complainant. It was alleged that the opposite party bank never got the goods insured and it was for the complainant to get the goods insured at his own responsibility. The bank also denied that stock worth Rs.6,27,870/- was destroyed. Thus, it was pleaded that there was no deficiency on the part of the bank. 4. OP No.2 took the plea that it was neither necessary nor proper party because on the date of fire accident, the stock of the complainant was not insured with the insurance company. 5. Sole controversy which needs determination in this revision petition is whether or not as per the terms of agreement between the parties, respondent / bank was under obligation to get the stock available at the shop of the complainant / petitioner insured?. If answer to this question is in the affirmative, then of-course, the respondent / bank has been deficient in providing service to the petitioner / complainant. 6. Shri Shekhar Raj Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the complainant/ petitioner has contended that impugned orders of the fora below are not sustainable as the orders are based upon incorrect appreciation of the evidence. It is argued that both the foras below have failed to appreciate that as per the agreement between the parties, opposite party no.1 / bank was under obligation to get the stock lying in the shop of the petitioner insured on behalf of the petitioner / complainant and debit the insurance premium amount to his cash credit account. It is contended that this obligation is admitted by the opposite party / bank in para 2 (c ) and ( e) of their written statement filed in response to the complaint in the District Forum. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to the copies of the statement of accounts pertaining to cash credit account of the complainant for the periods 01.04.2006 to 31.12.2006 and 21.07.2006 to 31.05.2007 wherein there are debit entries pertaining to the insurance premium for the insurance of stock lying in the premises of the petitioner. It is contended that impugned orders have been passed ignoring the aforesaid evidence. Therefore, those are liable to be set aside. 7. On careful perusal of the record, we find both that both the District Forum as well as State Commission has based their finding on interpretation of Clause V of the hypothecation agreement which reads thus: “That the said goods shall be kept by the Borrower (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 expense in the joint names of the Borrower(s) and the Bank in some Insurance Office approved by the Bank to the extent of atleast 10 percent 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 and in the event of the Bank being at any time apprehensive that the safety of the goods is likely to be endangered owing to not or strike, it shall on failure by the Borrower(s) to do so after request by the Bank at its discretion itself insure the same in such joint names against any damage arising therefrom the cost of such extra insurance being payable by the borrower(s) and being debited to such account as aforesaid, the Borrower(s) expressly agree(s) that the Bank shall be entitled to adjust, settle, compromise or refer to arbitration any dispute between the Company and the insured arising under or in connection with such policy or policies and such adjustment, settlement compromise and any award made on such arbitration shall be valid and binding on the Borrower(s) and also to receive all moneys payable under any such policy or under any claim made there under and to give a valid receipt thereof and that the amount so received shall be credited in the account having reference to the goods in respect of which such amount is received and that the Borrower(s) will not raise any question that a large sum might or ought to have been received or be entitled to dispute his / their liability for the balance remaining due on such account after such credit”. 8. On plain reading of the above said clause, it is evident that as per the agreement between the parties, the complainant borrower when required by the bank was under obligation to get the stock in his shop insured at his own expense in the joint names of borrower and the bank and if the complainant failed to get such insurance on being asked to do so in writing, the bank in its own discretion was entitled to get the goods insured against fire and debit premium and other charges to the account of the complainant. There is nothing in this clause which may suggest that the bank was under any obligation to get the hypothecated goods insured on behalf of the complainant. Further, the plea of the complainant that there is an admission of obligations to get the stock insured on the part of the respondent / bank, in para 2 (c) & ( e) of the written statement is against the record. On perusal of the copy of the written statement of the opposite party / bank, we find that in para 2 ( c ) & (e ), the bank has categorically denied that it had any obligation to get hypothecated goods insured on behalf of the complainant. On the contrary in the aforesaid paragraph, the bank has categorically stated that stock hypothecated with the bank as per the agreement was to be insured by the complainant at his own expense in the joint names of the bank and the borrower. Thus, we do not find any merit in the plea of the complainant. 9. In view of the discussion above, we are of the opinion that both the fora below have rightly dismissed the complaint in view of the written agreement between the parties. There is no material irregularity or infirmity in the impugned order which may call for any interference by this Commission in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. | 
