By :  SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT

          The case of the petitioner in brief is that he is the registered owner of the business of Electronics Goods in the name and style of Akash Electronics. For smooth running of his said business the complainant took a cash credit loan of Rs. 5,00,000/- on 30.03.14 from the OP Punjab National Bank being A/C No. 44320008700001306. The OP forced the complainant to open a shop keepers Insurance from the OP No.3 and he took such an insurance from the OP No.3 on 30.03.2014 being policy No. 311900/48/2014/2912 effective from 30.03.14 to 29.03.15. The claimant had enough credit in his A/C for deduction of the insurance amount and the first premium of which was sent to the OP No.3 by the PNB direct from the A/C of the complainant. Unfortunately in the night of 06.07.15 the shop of the complainant had been stolen and the miscreants took away mobile, laptop and other valuable electronic goods from the shop of the complainant. The matter was informed to the Sutahata PS on 08.07.16 and also the matter was informed to the OPs No. 1 and 2. The matter was also informed to the OP No.3 the Insurance Co. by a letter but the OP no.3 did not pay any farthing on the plea that the insurance premium for the year 2015 – 2016 was not paid. The complainant asserts that the amount of premium for the year 2015-16 was deducted from his A/C but it was not credited in the A/C of the Insurance Co. due to negligence of the OP no.1.

          Ultimately the claimant sent lawyer’s notice with registered post with A/D upon all the OPs, but till date no answer is received from any corner.

Hence, the complainant has filed this case on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite parties with the prayers as made in the complaint petition.

The OP NO.1& 2 have filed written version jointly and contested the case denying all the material allegations of the complaint petition. It is the specific case of these OPs that bank cannot force any borrower to initiate an insurance policy but it can advise the borrower for the same.  The premium of insurance for the year 2014-15 was debited from the A/C of the complainant in his presence. The value of the stolen articles as alleged by the complainant was never verified by this OP. No amount towards premium for the year 2015-16 was debited from the A/C of the complainant. That according to the bank norms without the consent or information of the A/C holder bank can never deduct any money for adjusting against any other due, ie insurance premium etc. It is clear assertion of this OP that they had no negligence on their part as alleged by the complainant; it was the duty of the complainant himself to deposit the insurance premiums which he failed in the instant case.

On the above grounds this OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint petition with cost.

The OP no. 3 Insurance Co. has also filed written version and has contested the case by denying the allegations of the complainant.

The case of this OP is that the complainant took an insurance policy from them with effect from 30.03.14 up to the midnight of 29.03.15 for his shop Akash Electronics. The complainant did not review his insurance policy after 29.03.15 for which the policy got lapsed. So, this OP is not liable to pay any loss to the complainant for the alleged theft in his shop in the night of 06.07.16.

Under the circumstances, the OPs pray for dismissal of the complaint petition with costs.

On the above pleadings of the parties the issued required to be considered in the case is (1) whether the claim application is maintainable and (2) whether the claimant is entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for.

                                                                                        Decision with Reasons.

Both the issues are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.

We have perused the petition of complaint, the written versions and WNA, as well as documents filed by the respective parties.

The complainant has prayed that OPs 1 and 2 be directed to pay compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- to the complainant and Rs.1.50,000/- for mental agony, pain harassment and injury and  Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost.

Now question is that whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

Admittedly the complainant took a cash credit loan of Rs. 5 lakhs from the OP no1 Punjab National Bank on 30.03.14 by account No. 44320008700001306. Admittedly the OP Nos. 1 and 2 advised the complainant to take shop keeper’s insurance from any approved insurance Co. of the bank.  The complainant took the insurance policy from the OP NO.3 in favour of Akash Electronics Ltd on 30..03.14 being Insurance Policy No. 311900/48/2014/2912 effective from 30.03.14 to 29.03.15. The complainant has stated in the complaint that he paid the premium of insurance for the year 2015-2016 which was deducted from his A/C maintained in the bank OP no.1 but the OP no.1 did not send the premium to the OP no.3. In the meantime according to complainant, stock of all materials of his shop had been stolen on 06.0716 by demolishing brick wall from the back side of his shop and complainant faced loss of more than lakhs of money along with different electronics goods like laptop, mobile, freeze etc. Complainant informed the matter to police station and also to the Branch Manager of the OP Bank and the OP no.2 on 08.07.16. but complainant did not explain the reason of delay for two days to intimate the loss of theft  to OP No. 1 and 2.

It appears that no surveyor was appointed to survey the loss of alleged stock  in the shop of the complainant.

In the case the OP no.1 bank has produced the copy of Account Ledger Inquiry dated 23.03.17 connected with the 29.03.14 accounts in respect of account of the complainant being No. 44320008700001306.

We have perused the copy of the bank statement and it appears that only on 18.03.15 a sum of Rs. 3,034/- was sent to the Insurance  Co and complainant paid the same but from no document it can be understood that complainant has paid premium for the year 2016 – 2017 to the OP no.3 who had the duty to pay the loss amount to the complainant, when admittedly the shop was stolen in the night of 06-07.16. The complainant also filed a copy of statement from which there is no whisper  of payment of premium  to the OP no.3.  It cannot be presumed only by the statement of the complainant that he paid the premium of insurance.

O P No. 2 submitted a copy of the Hypothecation of Goods and Book debts to secure cash credit facility. From clause 10(a) of the said document it appears that all the securities a aforesaid wherever situate shall be insured by the Borrower against fire risk and as and when required by the Bank against the war, riots, and civil commotion risks and /or risk of any other description with some insurance company approved by the Bank to the full market value of the Securities, in each case irrespective of the balance due against the borrower and that the said policy shall be taken out in the name of the Bank or in the joint names of the Bank and the Borrower with the Bank clause and that all policies and receipts for premiums paid on such insurance shall be delivered to the bank. Should the borrower fail on demand being made by the bank to insure or to deliver the policies or receipts for premiums as aforesaid, the Bank shall be at liberty but not bound to effect such insurance at the risk, responsibility and cost of the Borrower with such insurance companies as the Bank in its absolute and unfettered discretion thinks fit and to the extent of the full market value of the securities of which the bank shall be the sole judge.

From this clause it is clearly understood that the OP Nos. 1 or 2 could not force the complainant to take secure the goods by purchasing an Insurance Policy and there is also nothing mentioned about payment of the policy in case of loss is happened due to theft of the stocks.

From bare perusal of the entire complaint it appears that the complainant has failed to state the actual fact and actual prayer and the fact which has been stated by the complainant are not sufficiently proved by documents filed by him so that  complainant should get the reliefs as prayed for against the OP Nos. 1 and 2.

The complainant has not prayed for any relief against the OP no.3 Insurance Co.

In the result we are of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case against the OPs.

Hence, it is

                                                                                                ORDERED

That the C.C. No. 26 of 2017 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs.

Parties do bear their respective cost.

Let copy of judgment of the case be supplied to the parties free of costs.