IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10815 of 2011 Darpa Pipra Int.Udyog Samiti Sahyog Samiti through Gaya Lal Prasad (Chashier), son of Late Ram Pragas Sah, resident of village- Darpa Pipra, P.S.- Darpa, District- East Champaran. …… Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, East Champaran. 2. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Ekdare Branch, Chauradano, East Champaran. 3. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. Motihari, East Champaran. …. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. S.K. Tiwary, Advocate. For the State Bank of India : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Insurance Company : Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi, Advocate. ---------- 05/ 11.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar, learned counsel for the State Bank of India as well as learned counsel for the National Insurance Company Limited. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for directing the Bank to write off the loan amount after establishing liability and responsibility against whom it factually lies with respect to destruction of chimney by flood. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner took loan from the Bank in the year 1999 and constructed a brick- klin including its chimney. It is further claimed that due to heavy rain in the year 1991, the chimney of the petitioner was damaged and industry of the petitioner was subsequently closed due to which the petitioner was put to huge loss and he was unable to make payment for - 2 - refund of loan, part of which remained unpaid. 4. The claim of the petitioner is that it was the duty of the Bank to get the chimney insured under policy ‘B’ which included fire, lightening, explosion as well as other natural calamity as was being done with the other concerns, but in petitioner’s case the Bank proposed insurance only under policy ‘C’ which was only for fire, lightening and explosion and as such National Insurance Company Ltd. granted only the said policy to the petitioner, hence when the petitioner’s chimney was destroyed due to flood which was one of the natural calamities, the Insurance Company refused to compensate and the petitioner was put to loss due to none of his own fault, rather due to the fault of the State Bank of India. 5. From the averments of learned counsel for the parties as well as from the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the chimney was insured as far back as in the year 1990-91 on the proposal of State Bank of India only for policy ‘C’ which included fire, lightening and explosion and did not include other natural calamities, including flood etc. 6. Learned counsel for the State Bank of India has also stated that premium was being paid by the petitioner himself. There is no material to show that the petitioner ever raised any objection with respect to the insurance with respect to policy ‘C’ only nor there is any material to show that the State Bank of India was bound by any agreement or undertaking to get the insurance - 3 - done under policy ‘C’. 7. In the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot be legally deemed to be entitled to be compensated as per policy ‘B’ nor the State Bank of India can be directed to compensate the loss of the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)