These two revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner M/s. R.K. Industries against the common order dated 19.08.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in FA No.257 of 2013 & FA No.284 of 2013. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a trader and for his business he had taken the Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy No.350300/11/09/00000309 valid from 26.5.2009 to 25.05.2010 and policy No.350300/46/10/04/00000051 which was valid from 26.5.2010 to 25.05.2011 for his stocks from the respondent New India Assurance Co. Ltd. through respondent Corporation Bank. During the currency of the policy, fire occurred on 21.4.2010 between 6:15 am to 7.00 am. The intimation was given by the complainant to the respondent bank and the claim was also filed. The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor and surveyor gave his report on 27.10.2010. On the basis of the surveyor’s report, Insurance Company repudiated the claim vide its letter dated 14.12.2010. 3. Aggrieved by the repudiation, the consumer complaint bearing no.772 of 2012 was filed by the petitioner before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT Chandigarh, (in short ‘the District Forum’). The complaint was resisted by the opposite party/ Insurance Company as well as opposite party Bank. Both parties filed the written statement. However, the District Forum vide its order dated 20.05.2013 allowed the complaint and passed the following order:- “14. In view of the foregoing and entirety of the case, we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed. The OP No.2 Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.4,23,226/- towards the loss suffered by the complainant company. The OP No.2 is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant, apart from paying litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-. This order be complied with by OP No.2 Insurance Company within a period of 30 days from the date of its receipt, failing which it shall be liable to pay penal interest @12% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of filing this complaint i.e. 22.11.2012 till its actual payment, besides paying litigation costs, as aforesaid.” 4. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant as well as the Insurance Company preferred appeals before the State Commission. The State Commission finally dismissed the appeal bearing No.284 of 2013 filed by the complainant and allowed the appeal no.257 of 2013 filed by the opposite party Insurance Company. Hence, two revision petitions by the complainant/petitioner herein. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. None appeared on behalf of the respondent bank, inspite of proper service, therefore, the Bank was proceeded ex-parte on 09.10.2019. 6. Leaned counsel for the petitioner stated that one revision petition no.4538 of 2013 has been filed against the order passed in FA No.284 of 2013, wherein the State Commission has dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant. The District Forum and the State Commission both have not considered the role of the bank and the liability arising due to their deficiency in service. Learned counsel stated that the insurance claim has been rejected by the Insurance Company due to the fact that the bank did not inform the Insurance Company about the change of trade by the complainant. The complainant was earlier dealing with products of Hindustan Lever Company, however, after termination of the agency, the complainant started the trade of ply wood and also took the agency of reliance mobile. 7. The change was informed to the bank and every month statement of stocks was being sent to the bank. Even officer of the bank verified the stocks. Thus, the bank was fully aware about the change of the trade, but they did not inform the Insurance Company about this change and therefore, the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company. Both the fora below have not assessed the liability of bank in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Thus, the revision petition has been filed mainly with the request that this Commission may decide the liability of the bank in the present case. In support of his argument learned counsel referred to letter dated 13.09.2010 written by the bank to the Insurance Company informing the change of trade. The letter reads as under:- “This is to the reference to the Policy No.350300/11/09/00000309, that the policy was made on 26/5/2009 to 25/5/2010 and the policy no-350300/46/10/04/00000051from 26/05//2010 to 25/05/2011 was made only against the general merchandise items of Hindustan Lever Ltd. whereas the party have started the Plyboard business and Reliance Communication business from February 2009. As per our physical verification of stocks And stock statements (every month) of the firm shows the stocks of Ply Board and Reliance Communication From feb 2009. So you are requested to endorse the stocks of plyboard and reliance communication w.e.f. 26/05/2009 to 25/05/2010 and in the current Policy and update the same in our records also.” 8. From the above letter, it is clear that the bank has acknowledged that the trade was changed w.e.f. February, 2009. This letter has been written for making endorsement of new trade of plyboard and reliance communication in the earlier policy during the currency of which, the accident occurred as well as in the current policy. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that when the change in trade was not communicated to the Insurance Company by the bank, the Insurance Company is legally right to repudiate the claim. The grievance of the complainant is against the bank because due to their deficiency in service, the complainant has suffered loss. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the following judgments- “1. Kashmir Singh Vs. Punjab National Bank & anr., RP 1552 of 2012, decided on 03.12.2014 (NC). In this case, the Commission allowed the revision petition filed by the complainant holding that the bank is responsible to take the insurance or to give notice to the complainant for taking insurance from outside. 2. Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Ms. Sheba & anr., I (2014) CPJ 262 (NC). It has been held that:- 26. Counsel for the petitioner had also admitted that the initial policy was taken by the Bank and the premium for the policy was debited to the account of respondent no. 1. He further argued that it was for the respondent no. 1 to check on the policies taken. But as has been admitted in their written statement by the petitioner, the policies were taken by them and respondent no. 2 had sent the policies directly to the petitioner, in view of the terms and conditions of the agreement. As per the clause 7 of the agreement of the policy which states that “shall be handed over to the Bank.” Hence, petitioner cannot take the plea that respondent no. 1 should have checked the policy taken is the appropriate one.” “Hence, there is no reason not to believe that she has correctly stated that she never signed any proposal form or taken any policy personally and that she had never received the policies with the terms and conditions, as also her statement that respondent no. 2 never discussed the same with her before issue of policies. 3. S.B.I Life Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Dixit & anr., RP No.2884 of 2010, decided on 10.12.2010. In this case, this Commission has found that SBI is responsible, even in not getting the documents prepared and therefore, SBI should bear the loss. 4. Corporation Bank vs. Sandhya Shenoy & anr. I (2009) CPJ 34 (NC). It has been held that:- “8. In our view, having agreed to pay the premium and having right to charge such expenses on the premium of such policy to the account of the borrower, they should not have discontinued at least without informing and instructing the complainant to take the policy itself. In the light of the act of the bank officials in not informing the complainant to take the policy on her own would surely amount to deficiency in service in the age of modern means of communications and fair business practice not to pace customer of bank to an unimagined risk. One has to see the term “service” in the light of the modern business context, which is expanding year-by-year. Thus fact situation in this case is totally different from the case of Pradeep Kumar Jain vs. Citibank & Anr. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company stated that the Insurance Company has to abide by the terms and conditions of the policy. If the insured starts the new trade, it has to be endorsed by the Insurance Company before any claim is preferred for the same. In the present case, no information was given by the complainant or by the bank in respect of any change in the trade adopted by the complainant. The complainant even did not inform the incident of fire to the Insurance Company. The complainant had informed only to the bank. The State Commission has rightly allowed the appeal of the respondent Insurance Company and no liability can be fastened against the respondent Insurance Company. 12. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and examined the record. It is seen from the record that the surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.2,57,312/-. The surveyor has not considered the reliance mobiles under the reliance communication agency taken by the complainant because there was no endorsement in the policy for these products. The company itself has stated that they are not filing any claim for Hindustan Lever Products as evident from the report of the surveyor as under:- “15.3. As per the insured till October 2008, they were authorized distributor of M/s. Hindustan Lever Ltd. for entire Panchkula district. In October, 2008, the distributorship was terminated and they started the business of retail sale of ply wood, Boards, Laminates, Fevicol etc. Apart from that the insured also started working as Distributors of Reliance GSM and CDMA prepaid connections and hand sets for the area of Zirakpur, Baltana and Dhakoli area. As such the stock at the premises of the insured on date of loss comprised of stock of Hindustan Lever, Stock of Reliance Phones and Stock of Ply, Board, Laminates etc. 15.4. The policy issued to the insured describes the property covered as under: “On items of all types of General Merchandise, items of Hindustan Lever and other related goods with insured’s trade whilst stored/lying at above address”. In view of the above, the stock of Reliance phones and stock of ply, boards, laminates etc. cannot be considered as a part of the stock covered under the captioned policy. The matter was discussed in detail with the insured and they informed us that they have changed their trade in October 2008 and have accordingly intimated the same to their Bankers and Taxation department. The insured has submitted the certificate issued by the taxation authorities in that regard. The certificate describes the amended goods of trading as “Ply Board, Plywood, Mica Sheets and Adhesives”. There is no mention of stock of mobile phones. As such the loss of mobile phones has not been considered while assessing the loss. Moreover the loss of ply, boards, wood, adhesives etc. has been assessed and the underwriters may take a decision on admission of liability at their end. The insured has neither claimed nor have we allowed the loss of the stock of Hindustan Lever.” 13. Though the surveyor in the above report states that as per the information given by the complainant, they had informed the bank in respect of change of stocks, but when the learned counsel for the petitioner was asked to produce any proof that intimation was sent to the bank with respect to the change of trade or whether any request was made to the bank for getting endorsement for the changed items of trade i.e. ply wood and Reliance mobiles, the learned counsel stated that no such letter was available on record. The learned counsel mentioned that statements of monthly stocks were submitted to the bank, which indicated that the stocks of ply wood and stocks of reliance mobiles were present in every month’s statement and the bank has confirmed the same vide their letter dated 13.09.2010. Therefore, it was the duty of the bank to have got the endorsement on the policy for the new products. First of all, there is no letter written by the complainant about the change of their trade to get the endorsement on the policy for the new products. The statements of stocks are routinely sent to the bank for their record. It is not clear whether these stocks were properly examined by the bank or not. Idea of getting the stock statements is to secure the loan. Letter dated 13.09.2010 by the bank has been written after the fire accident. Though in this letter they have written that the complainant changed business from February, 2009, obviously, they have written on the basis of the assertion made by the complainant by then and the stock statements received by them. As per Clause 7 of the Credit Sanction Intimation (Terms and Conditions) dated 22.04.2008, the articles charged to the bank are to be kept comprehensively insured at the cost of the complainant company by a policy in the joint names of bank and the borrower. This shows that the insurance was to be affected by the borrower. However, bank can also take insurance if the borrower does not get it done. Thus, it was the duty of the complainant to have given an application for endorsement of the new products in the policy either to the bank or to the Insurance Company. 14. The Insurance Company has relied upon general condition No.3 of the policy in repudiating the claim. This condition reads as under:- “3. If the trade or manufacture carried on be altered, or if the nature of the occupation of or other circumstances affecting the building insured or containing the insured property be changed in such a way as to increase the risk of loss or damage by Insured Perils.” 15. From the above condition, it is clear that if the building is in use for a different trade, business or purpose which changes the risk then the complainant must obtain the permission from the Insurance Company. In the present case, the surveyor in its report has clearly stated that the policy issued to the insured describes the property covered as under: “On items of all types of General Merchandise, items of Hindustan Lever and other related goods with insured’s trade whilst stored/lying at above address”. 16. In the present case, as the business of plywood was started by the complainant, risk of fire had definitely increased, therefore, it was incumbent upon the complainant to have informed the Insurance Company for getting permission from them. Moreover, the item of plywood cannot be considered under items of General Merchandise, items of Hindustan Lever and other related items with the trade of the complainant as allowed in the policy. So far as Reliance mobiles and sim cards are concerned, the surveyor has even cast doubt on this business because no information or return has been filed with the Trade Tax department for this business. Therefore, neither the plywood nor the Reliance mobiles and sim cards can be treated as insured under the policy. 17. Coming to the deficiency on the part of the bank, it is seen that though the bank had taken the policy for earlier trade of the complainant, it did not inform the Insurance Company about the change in trade of the complainant. Though, the main responsibility was on the complainant to get endorsed the policy for the new trade and new products, but the bank also cannot escape from their responsibility to have taken the endorsement on the policy for the new products. As this is a case of contributory negligence on the part of the complainant as well, the liability of the bank in this regard has to be accordingly assessed. The surveyor has assessed the net loss of Rs.2,57,312/- only. The bank in their letter dated 13.09.2010 addressed to the Insurance Company has stated that the trade/business was changed by the complainant since February, 2009. Thus, there was enough time for the bank to have got the endorsement on the policy in respect of the new products. In the facts and circumstances of the case, in my view, the liability of the bank can be fixed to the tune of Rs.75,000/-. The judgments referred to by the complainant have different facts as compared to the present case, as in those cases except Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Ms. Sheba & anr. (supra), the bank was found deficient for not taking the policy. In Indian Overseas Bank Vs. Ms. Sheba & anr. (supra), the bank had defaulted in not taking the appropriate policy. In the case at hand, the bank had taken the policy but change of trade or business was not communicated by the bank to the Insurance Company as alleged by the complainant. Therefore, none of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner gives the guidance for the present case. 18. Based on the above discussion, the Revision Petition No.4537 of 2013 is dismissed as I do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 19.08.2013 passed in FA No.257 of 2013. Revision Petition No.4538 of 2013 is, on the other hand, partly allowed setting aside the order of the State Commission dated 19.08.2013 passed in FA No.284 of 2013 as well as the order dated 20.5.2013 of the District Forum and the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party No.1/Corporation Bank. Respondent Corporation bank is directed to pay Rs.75,000/- (rupees seventy five thousand only) along with interest @6% per annum from 01.01.2014 till actual payment to the petitioner/complainant. The Corporation bank will also pay a litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- to the complainant. The order be complied by the respondent Corporation bank within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. | 
