Petitioner was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Respondent/complainant purchased HMT Tractor after obtaining a loan of Rs.3,20,000/- from the District Co-operative Agriculture and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Mungeli, petitioner herein.  The tractor was insured.  The said tractor met with an accident on 22.4.2004.  As per the agreement arrived at between the

-2-

parties, in case the complainant did not get the tractor insured, then the petitioner was at liberty to get the same insured and debit the premium amount to the account of the complainant.  Petitioner took the insurance policy for the period w.e.f. 31.2.2002 to 30.1.2003 and then, from 12.2.2003 to 11.2.2004, and thereafter, from 15.5.2004 to 14.5.2005.  But, for the period from 12.2.2004 to 14.5.2004, petitioner failed to get the policy renewed and during this period, on 22.4.2004 the tractor met with an accident.  Complaint was filed by the complainant which was dismissed by the District Forum.

          On an appeal filed by the respondent, the State Commission reversed order of the District Forum, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,64,000/- to complainant within 45 days along with interest @ 9% p.a., failing which the petitioner was to pay interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of default till realization.  Rs.3000/- were awarded by way of costs of proceedings.

          We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Although, it was the responsibility of the respondent/complainant             to get the insurance policy at the first instance, but in case, the

-3-

respondent/complainant failed to take the insurance policy then the petitioner could take the insurance policy and debit the premium to the account of respondent.  In this case, by its own showing the petitioner had been getting the tractor insured throughout and deducting the premium amount to the account of the respondent.  Under the circumstances, the petitioner by conduct became bound to get the tractor insured in time.  Respondent could justifiably presume that since the petitioner had been taking the policy receipts, the petitioner must have taken the policy for this period as well.  Petitioner is stopped by conduct from relying upon the terms of the policy.  Revision petition is dismissed.