The bank is liable for the insurance lapse as it had previously undertaken the obligation to renew the policy on behalf of the borrower.

ORDER

A. P. SAHL J (PRESIDENT)

1. The dispute arises out of a Complaint filed by the Respondent No.-l in respect of a claim of indemnity against a fire insurance coverage, the policy whereof was acquired from Respondent No.-2 Oriental Insurance Company. The loss had occurred on account of a fire that broke out on 30.01.2001 in the premises of the Complainant that was intimated to the Insurance Company who appointed M/s S. Soni & Co. as their Surveyor. When the Surveyor visited the business premises on 30.01.2001. On enquiry of the policy particulars a discovery was made that the policy had already lapsed on 25.11.2000. This fact is not disputed. The Complainant also lodged an FIR where he has admitted this fact of the policy not being in existence.

2. Consumer Complaint No. 338 of 2002 filed by the Complainant was allowed on 17.10.2012 holding the Bank to be responsible.

3. The Bank has come up in this Appeal and the arguments advanced earlier on 03.05.2024 are extracted herein under:DCBA

"The appeal has been filed by the Bank contending that the impugned order of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressai Commission dated 17.10.2012 in spite of having recorded findings in favour of the Bank as well as the Insurance Company has erroneously shifted the liability and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,50,000/- payable by the Bank which is unjust.

Learned counsel for the Bank submits that according to the hypothecation agreement clause 7 (a), it is the responsibility and liability of the borrower to get the goods/ stocks insured. Clause 7 fa) obliges the borrower to get the stocks insured and on his failure and on a demand being made by the Bank an insurance policy can be obtained but the liability will still

remain of the borrower in respect of seeking insurance coverage.DCBA There is no dispute in this case that the initial policy was taken covering the risk of fire in the year 1992 that was renewed from time to time till25.11.2000, The dispute has arisen as a fire occurred on 30.01,2001, when a claim was lodged by the respondent and he was intimated that the policy had already lapsed on 25.11.2000. Thus, there being no policy in existence or renewal of the previous policy, the complainant filed this complaint alleging this lapse and deficiency on the part of the Bank. The ground taken was that an authorization was given to the Bank wav back on 18.12.1992, which document was exhibited as annexure CW 1/1. The said document is not on record of this appeal but a copy has been shown by the learned counsel from his brief The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that it is under the authority of the said letter that the earlier policy was renewed by the Bank itself from time to time till the year 2000 and the premium of the policy was being regularly deducted and debited directly from the account of the complainant. The submission is that there was no intervention or requirement of the complainant to get the policy renewed every year as under the aforesaid arrangement the same was being continued since 1992.

The appellant Bank has however come up contending that the document dated 18.12.1992 which is exhibited as annexure CW1/1 is a manipulated document and averments have been made in paragraph 4 of the evidence affidavit filed before the State Commission, which is an affidavit of Shri Subhash Shander Arora, Deputy Manager, PNB, B. O. Najafgarh, New Delhi. The document also seems to be bearing a stamp of the Bank.

Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the FIR which was lodged after the incident by the complainant itself recites categorically that the shop was not insured. It is