1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is the holder of Cash Credit Loan A/c. No.30104884115 from the OP in the year, 2009 for running an Electrical shop with C.C. limit of Rs.4.00 lacs and the said account was duly insured by OP with M/s. New India Assurance Co., Koraput branch but the complainant was furnishing quarterly stock statement with stock value of Rs.6 to 7 lacs in the prescribed format of the OP.  It is submitted that on 27.4.2016 at about 19.23 hours due to electric short circuit, the fire broke out in the shop of the complainant when he was busy outside in electrical work.  On being informed, he immediately came to the spot and intimated the fact to the fire station who extinguished the fire but in the ravages of fire, the electrical goods worth Rs.10 to 12 lacs were gutted.  The matter was also reported to the Police vide SDE No.720 dt.28.4.2016 and Fire Brigade also issued certificate dt.07.05.16.  It is further submitted that the fact of fire incident was intimated to OP on 28.4.2016 who assured to investigate the matter soon since the shop was insured by them but they remained silent in spite of subsequent reminders ended with letter dt.30.05.2016.  The complainant submitted that the OP was regularly deducting the insurance premium from C.C. a/c of the complainant as they took charge of insurance voluntarily for safe guard of their loan but now they are not extending any cooperation.  Instead, the OP through its letter dt.22.9.2016 demanded Rs.3, 89,647/- as the account is irregular since 31.07.2016 and the stock statement was not furnished regularly.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to furnish SOA of last quarter prior to fire accident, insurance details, to write off demands raised vide their letter dt.19.08.2016 and to pay Rs.14, 10,000/- towards damage, compensation and cost with interest to the complainant.

2.                     The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about C. C. loan facility with limit of Rs.4.00 lacs was extended in favour of the Complainant on his request and the OP being the financial institution always demands to all its customers for taking care of their loan safe and insured.  As per agreement it is responsibility of the complainant to keep alive his own insurance or to give written instruction to the bank for deduction of amount from his loan account for depositing the same as insurance premium but the complainant ignoring his own fault has filed this case.  It is further contended that the complainant has submitted his stock statement on 10.09.2015 and insurance document in the year, 2009 before the OP but the complainant stopped paying insurance premium from the year, 2014 and also did not take any effective step.  Hence at the time of fire accident, there was no insurance cover for the stocks due to  his own fault.  It is also further submitted that in his letter dt.28.04.2016 and in subsequent letters the complainant has written loss to the tune of Rs.6.00 to Rs.7.00 lacs but in the complaint petition he has claimed loss due to fire as Rs.10.00 lacs to Rs.12.00 lacs and not a single paper or bill has been filed by the complainant regarding stock of electrical items stacked in his shop.  With these and other contentions, denying any deficiency in service on its part, the Ops prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     Parties have filed certain documents in support of their cases.  The OP filed affidavit.  Heard from the A/R for the OP in absence of the complainant and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case it is a fact that the complainant had availed Cash Credit loan of Rs.4.00 lacs from the OP vides Loan A/c. No.30104884115 in the year 2009 for business purpose and the said loan account was insured with M/s. New India Assurance Co., Koraput branch.  The complainant stated that on 27.4.2016 at about 19.23 hours due to short circuit the fire broke out in the shop and electrical goods worth Rs.10 to 12 lacks were destroyed and damaged.  It is no doubt that the fact of fire accident has been intimated to Fire Brigade, local PS as well as the OP.  It is the case of the complainant that in spite of repeated written approach the OP did not come forward to assess the loss since the insurance was done by the bank by deducting premiums from the C. C. accounts of the complainant.

5.                     Learned Counsel for the OP submitted that at the time of sanction of loan a letter of arrangement as well as agreement dft.22.12.2006 has been executed by the complainant and his wife in favour of the OP and as per terms of said agreement the loan account was continuing.  It is further submitted that the bank always insists its customers for taking care of their loan safe and insured.  He referred para-6 of the agreement which denotes, “All the assets charged to the bank should always be fully insured by the BORROWER against fire, lightening, riots, strikes, floods, cyclones, earthquakes, civil construction and other natural calamities etc. with a company approved by the Bank in the joint names of the bank and yourselves, at your cost for full market value or Bank’s interest, whichever is higher.  The policies/cover notes should be lodged with the Bank.  The Policies should be kept alive (current) during the currency of the advance.  In the event of non compliance, the bank reserves the right (but not be bound to exercise) to take the insurance cover as required by the bank by debit to your account.  The machinery to be purchased out of the Term Loan, if any to be insured for the full market value or original cost of the machinery, whichever is higher.  Likewise all the renewals of the policies should also be effected/done by the Borrower at all materials.”

6.                     The terms of agreement at Para-6 which we have perused carefully, clearly show about the responsibility of the borrower to keep alive the insurance of the stock of the shop regularly as per full market value and furnish the cover note of insurance before the OP Bank.  The said clause further says that all renewals of the policy should also be effected/done by the borrower at all materials.  The OP stated that during fire accident, there was no insurance to the shop premises of the complainant.  According to the complainant, as per agreement the shop was required to be insured by the bank but for inaction of the bank in not getting the shop insured, he sustained huge financial loss.  It is submitted by the OP that as per agreement entered into between the bank and the complainant, it is the complainant who required keeping the premises duly insured and the bank is not bound to insure the shop premises as per Para-6 of Letter of arrangement.

7.                     From the above facts and terms of agreement executed by the complainant, it is the complainant who is responsible for insurance of the shop along with electrical goods as covered and he was to effect all renewals and furnish the cover note before the bank regularly but the complainant has failed to do so.  It is found that during material time of fire incident, there was no insurance cover to the shop room of the complainant.  In the above premises, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the OP bank.  As we see, the OP has no liability for the loss sustained by the complainant and thus the complaint fails.

8.                     In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant having no merit but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)