JUDGMENT : (K.R. SHRIRAM, CJ.) This is the first appeal against an order and judgment passed by the Principal District Judge, Tiruppur, on 1 st August, 2023 decreeing a suit that was filed by respondents 1 to 3. For ease of reference and understanding, we would identify the parties by the original description i.e., appellants will be referred to as “defendants (defendant bank)” and respondents 1 to 3 will be referred to as “plaintiffs”. 2. First plaintiff, a registered partnership firm, was carrying on business of producing knit fabrics on job works. First plaintiff's factory was situated at 17A, SPA Export Compound, Kallampalayam, Tiruppur. Pursuant to a loan application that was filed by plaintiffs for the purpose of their business in purchasing machineries and working capital requirement, defendant bank sanctioned a term loan of Rs.108.97 lakhs and Rs.10 lakhs as working capital. As per the agreement between plaintiffs and defendant bank, the loan was secured by hypothecation of machineries and accessories purchased/proposed to be purchased by plaintiffs. Collateral security of the land and residential building was also given by plaintiffs. The agreement between plaintiffs and defendant bank also provided for insuring the machineries and accessories in the joint names of plaintiffs and defendant bank. The policy was to be current during the term of the loan. 3. Pursuant to the agreement for term loan and Take Delivery Letter annexed to DPN (Demand Promissory Note) dated 14 th January, 2015 (Exs.B4 and B2) respectively, the amounts, as noted above, were sanctioned/released. 4. On 8 th March, 2017, defendant bank obtained a fire insurance policy to cover the assets mentioned therein. Defendant No.3-New India Assurance Company Limited (insurance company) issued a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy, in which the insured is shown as defendant bank and second plaintiff, the partner of plaintiff No.1, as assured. The period of insurance was from 08.03.2017 up to 07.03.2018. The policy came to be issued pursuant to a proposal dated 08.03.2017, that defendant bank had submitted. 5. On 5 th March, 2018, the insurance company, issued a renewal notice which was received by defendant No.1 only on or about 12 th March, 2018 informing defendant No.1 that the policy was expiring on 07.03.2018 and, therefore, advised them that the policy has to be renewed. 5. On 5 th March, 2018, the insurance company, issued a renewal notice which was received by defendant No.1 only on or about 12 th March, 2018 informing defendant No.1 that the policy was expiring on 07.03.2018 and, therefore, advised them that the policy has to be renewed. In the meanwhile, on 10 th March, 2018, there was a fire accident in the premises of plaintiffs and the entire factory got gutted. All plant and machineries came to be destroyed in the fire. 6. When it was informed about the loss due to the fire, the insurance company declined to pay on the ground that the policy had lapsed before the incident of fire happened, in effect, there was no policy in place. 7. Notwithstanding the loss of machineries by fire, after defendant bank initiated SARFAESI proceedings, the claim of defendant bank has been settled on 14.09.2021. In the meanwhile, plaintiffs filed the suit on 28 th November, 2018. 8. According to plaintiffs, defendant bank, which was in a dominating position, was the agent of insurance company and defendant bank undertook the responsibility of obtaining insurance cover from insurance company, and because defendant bank failed to renew the policy, plaintiffs were unable to recover the insured value of the goods and, hence, defendant bank was liable to pay for the loss suffered by plaintiffs. It is plaintiffs' case that defendant bank assured plaintiffs that it would obtain insurance policy for the subject plant, machineries and accessories and other assets that plaintiffs had offered as security. In support of their stand, plaintiffs also relied upon the fact that the proposal for the insurance cover was submitted by the bank, the policy showed defendant bank as one of the assured, the renewal letter was also addressed to defendant bank and defendant bank also addressed two communications dated 15 th March, 2018 and 19 th March 2018 (Exs.A12 and A13) respectively, to the insurance company stating that the insurance claim be considered favourably. 9. Defendant bank filed written statement dated 25 th March, 2018 denying any liability. 9. Defendant bank filed written statement dated 25 th March, 2018 denying any liability. It is defendant bank's case that, as per the loan agreement, it was plaintiffs who undertook to keep secured/hypothecated machineries by a valid insurance policy, to be issued by an insurance company approved by defendant bank in the joint name of plaintiffs and the bank or in the name of plaintiffs with Bank Clause at the cost of plaintiffs during the subsistence of the loan. The agreed Bank Clause effectively provides for payment of the insurance claim amount to defendant bank in case of there being a valid claim and, if the amount received by defendant bank was in surplus of what was payable to defendant bank, the surplus was to be received by defendant bank as agent for the other parties who will be entitled to receive the surplus. It was defendant bank's case that plaintiffs did not take insurance cover and, therefore, defendant bank had to take cover to recover the dues of plaintiff. 10. Defendant bank also submitted that agreement provides that responsibility was that of the borrower, viz., plaintiffs, to insure/renew the policy and to also pay the premium. It is also defendant bank's case that agreement also provides that on failure by plaintiffs to take insurance cover, defendant bank had liberty to take insurance policy at the cost of plaintiffs. It was also submitted that plaintiffs had even given standing instructions to debit its account for payment of premium, should the need arise. In rejoinder, it was submitted by Shri Parthasarathy that the standing instructions were taken only for the purpose that it was defendant bank that took the responsibility of insuring and plaintiffs had to only pay for the premium. 11. The following Issues were framed by the trial court: (1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount as prayed for? (2)Whether the defendants 1 and 2 alone are liable to pay as claimed by 3 rd defendant? (3)To what other reliefs? 12. Plaintiffs and defendant bank led evidence of one witness each. The insurance company, defendant No.3, did not lead any evidence. The trial court decreed the suit for the entire claim against defendant bank. (2)Whether the defendants 1 and 2 alone are liable to pay as claimed by 3 rd defendant? (3)To what other reliefs? 12. Plaintiffs and defendant bank led evidence of one witness each. The insurance company, defendant No.3, did not lead any evidence. The trial court decreed the suit for the entire claim against defendant bank. By an order and judgment dated 1.8.2023, impugned in this appeal, suit was decreed for a sum of Rs.1,26,88,255/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of decree and thereafter at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of decree till the date of payment. Three months time was granted to pay the decreetal amount. The suit as against the insurance company was dismissed. 13. The appeal came to be admitted on 27.03.2024. In the stay application filed by defendant bank, stay was granted subject to defendant bank depositing a sum of Rs.1.00 Crore with the Registrar General of this Court. That amount, we are informed, was deposited and there is a stay against the execution proceedings. 14. The Issues that come up for consideration before us are: (1) Whether the trial court was correct in decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiffs? (2) In terms of agreement by which the term loan and working capital loan was sanctioned, who was responsible/obligated to insure the hypothecated assets? (3) Whose responsibility it was to have the policy renewed? 15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we would answer all the issues together. 16. For this, it will be useful to re-produce the relevant Clauses in the (a) Common Deed of Hypothecation of Movables/Assets/Debts (Ex.B3); (b) Agreement for Term Loans (Ex.B4); and (c) Take Delivery Letter to D.P.N. (Demand Promissory Note) dated 14.01.2015 (Ex.B2). (a) Common Deed of Hypothecation of Movables/Assets/Debts (Ex.B3) “WHEREAS the Borrower has approached the Bank for financial accommodation/s offering to secure the repayment thereof by hypothecation of the 'movables'. AND the Bank has agreed to grant/has granted the following credit facility/facilities (hereinafter called “credit facilities”) to the Borrower: AND has opened/will open relative account/s in the name of the Borrower on the Borrower agreeing to secure the repayment of the same by hypothecation of the movables besides other securities/guarantees that may be required to be furnished in favour of the Bank. IN PURSUANCE WHEREOF THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS: 1. ..... 2. (a) That the hypothecated movables and all the sales realisation and insurance proceeds thereof shall be held as Bank's exclusive property, specially appropriated to this security and the Borrower will not create any charge, mortgage, lien or encumbrance affecting the same or any part thereof in favour of any other party/ies and will not do anything which would prejudice the security hereby created. 3. ..... 4. The hypothecated movables, if insurable, shall be insured against risk of the accident, theft and all other risk by the Borrower with the Insurance Company approved by the Bank in the joint names of the Bank and the Borrower and for sole benefit of the Bank for their full market value and the Borrower shall on his own or on demand deliver to the Bank all policies and receipts for premia paid on such insurance. Should the Borrower fail to insure/renew the policy or fail to deliver the policies and or receipts for premia to the Bank as aforesaid within three days next before the expiry of policy, the Bank shall be at liberty, but not bound, to effect/renew such insurance at the expenses of the Borrower. The Borrower shall not do or suffer to be done by any act which may invalidate or avoid such insurance. That all sums received under any such insurance as aforesaid shall be applied towards reinstating the movables hypothecated at the option of the Bank or be applied in or towards the liquidation of the balance due to the Bank for the time being and in the event of there being a surplus it shall be applied as provided by the clause 6 hereof.” (b) Agreement for Term Loans (Ex.B4): “MEMORANDM OF AGREEMENT, made this 14 th day of Jan 2015 between Shri/Smt/M/s. Shree Bhuvanam Knitt Fab, No.17-A, SPA Exports Compound, Kallampalayam, Tirupur-641601 .... WHEREAS the Borrower is in need of money for the purpose set forth in the Borrower's application and whereas at the request of Borrower as per the said application, the Bank has agreed to grant to the Borrower financial accommodation by way of loan of Rs.10897000/- (Rupees One Crore Eight Lakhs Ninety Seven Thousand only) upon the terms and conditions set forth in these presents on the security of mortgage of properties (movable/immovable) and/or on the hypothecation of movables already purchased and possessed and proposed to be purchased. 1. The Borrower hereby agrees that the said advance shall be governed by the terms herein contained as well as those embodied in the security documents except in so far as the security documents may expressly or by necessary implications be modified by these presents. ..... 7. (a) The Borrower agrees that all the rules of business of the Bank that are now in force or hereafter may come into force, shall in all respects be completely binding on the Borrower. The Borrower undertakes to keep the security furnished to the Bank covered by insurance either in the joint name of the Borrower and the Bank or in the name of the Borrower with Bank Clause at his cost during the subsistence of the loan. Cover note/insurance policy issued by the insurance company on effecting/renewing the policy must be lodged with the Bank by the Borrower well in advance. The Borrower agrees to pay service charges, incidental charges, fees of the architect/engineer in connection with the Certification of Progress of Work, the pre and post sanction out of pocket expenses such as appraisal of credit, documentation, valuation, telephone, notice charges, payment of premia for effecting and renewing the insurance policy/ies covering all securities provided to the Bank for the loan etc. that may be incurred by the Bank and such other charges/expenses that the Bank may incur or charge in connection with the loan and/or security therefor. The Borrower shall pay besides instalments, such fees/charges/expenses as and when demanded by the Bank or debited to the loan account of the Borrower. If the Borrower were to fail to pay such amount shall carry interest as applicable to overdues in the loan which the Borrower shall be liable to pay. .... 9. The Borrower shall pay besides instalments, such fees/charges/expenses as and when demanded by the Bank or debited to the loan account of the Borrower. If the Borrower were to fail to pay such amount shall carry interest as applicable to overdues in the loan which the Borrower shall be liable to pay. .... 9. In consideration of the above premises the Borrower hereby hypothecates the movables already purchased and possessed and also other movables proposed to be purchased hereto and/or any movables such as machineries and vehicles etc. acquired and possessed by the Borrower in future as security for the due payment by the Borrower to the Bank until closing of the above said advance in full with interest. 10. (a) The Borrower agrees and undertakes to take delivery forthwith the movables and will install the same at the address mentioned in the common deed of hypothecation and/or pay and take all the care and precautions necessary to maintain the same in good and perfect condition. ..... 11. (a) That the hypothecated movables and all the sale realisations and insurance proceeds thereof shall be held as Bank's exclusive property, specially appropriated to this security and the Borrower will not create any charge, mortgage, lien or encumbrance affecting the same or any part thereof nor do anything which would prejudice this security. (b) The Borrower undertakes to get the vehicle/tractor/machinery/boats/power tiller and accessories under hypothecation registered where registration is necessary under any law for the time being in force and get the Bank's lien noted in the registration certificate within 15 days from the date of delivery of the vehicle/tractor/machinery/power tiller/boat and accessories and inform the same to the Bank. ..... 13. The hypothecated movables shall be insured against risk of fire, accident, theft and all other risks by the Borrower with insurance company/ies as approved by the Bank in the joint names of the Bank and the Borrower and for sole benefit of the Bank for their full market value and the Borrower shall on demand deliver to the Bank all policies and receipts for premia paid on such insurance. Should the Borrower fail to insure/renew the policy or fail to deliver the policies or receipts for premia to the Bank as aforesaid within three days after demand, the Bank shall be at liberty though not bound, to effect such insurance at the expenses of the Borrower. Should the Borrower fail to insure/renew the policy or fail to deliver the policies or receipts for premia to the Bank as aforesaid within three days after demand, the Bank shall be at liberty though not bound, to effect such insurance at the expenses of the Borrower. The Borrower shall not do or suffer to be done any act which may invalidate or avoid such insurance. That all sum received under any such insurance as aforesaid shall be applied towards reinstating the security hypothecated at the option of the Bank or be applied in or towards the liquidation of the balance due to the Bank for the time being and in the event of there being a surplus, it shall be applied as provided by Clause 15 hereof. 14. In the event of default in terms of these presents by the Borrower, the Bank as its option is entitled to take possession of the hypothecated/movables or part thereof at Borrower's risk by entering into the Premises where the hypothecated/movables or part thereof are kept and remain therein .... ..... 17. The Borrower hereby declares that all the hypothecated movables and mortgaged immovable properties are the absolute properties of the Borrower and is/are at the sole disposal of the Borrower and free from any prior charge or encumbrance and that all future movable property hereunder shall likewise be unencumbered, undisposed property and that the Borrower has not done or knowingly suffered or been party or privy to anything whereby he is in anyway prevented from hypothecating the hypothecated movable or any part thereof to the Bank a shall be required by the Bank. ..... 20. It shall be the duty of the Borrower to take out and keep in force all permits and licences required to be taken by any law for the time being in force for the purpose of maintaining, continuing the plying of vehicle/tractor/power tiller, boat and/or machinery and accessories and also such other vehicles/tractors/machineries to be acquired in future whenever required by the Bank, the Borrower shall do everything necessary for transferring to and effectively vesting in the Bank or any of its officers or nominees, all such permit and licences necessary for maintaining and continuing the said business by the Bank or by any of its officers or nominees for the purpose of realising the amount due to the Bank. 21. 21. The Borrower shall punctually pay all rates, taxes, rents and outgoing in relation to hypothecated movables/mortgaged properties or the premises/garage/farms whereon the hypothecated movables may be and keep the same free from distress, attachment or the like. ...... 24. The Borrower hereby undertakes to make and furnish to the Bank, whenever called upon by the Bank to do so, all statements and returns of the cost and market value of the hypothecated movables and also such other documents or particulars as called for by the Bank, at its discretion from time to time. ...... 27. Not withstanding anything contained herein or in the security documents, the whole advance shall become due forthwith and payable by the Borrower to the Bank and the Bank will be entitled to, but not bound to enforce its security upon the happening of any one or more of the following events, namely: a) .... b) .... c) the Borrower committing any breach or default in the performance or observance of these presents and/or the Borrower's proposal and/or the security documents or any other terms or conditions relating to the advance.” (c) Take Delivery Letter to D.P.N. (Ex.B2): Place : Tirupur Date : 14.01.2015 From Shree Bhuvanam Knitt Fab, No.17-A, SPA Export Compound, Kallampalaya, Tirupur-641 601 To The Branch Manager, Corporation Bank, Tirupur Main. 9. ..... You are entitled, but not bound, to effect/renew the insurance policy/ies at my/our cost covering any/all securities that may have been given to you/created in your favour by me/us/third party at my/our instance. ..... 15. I/we confirm that the rules governing the advance have been explained to me/us and I/we have understood the same.” [emphasis supplied] 17. The agreement between plaintiffs and defendant bank, therefore, clearly provides that it was the borrower, viz., plaintiffs, who undertook to keep the security furnished to defendant bank covered by insurance either in the joint name of the borrower and defendant bank or in the name of the borrower with Bank Clause at his cost during the subsistence of the loan. Parties also agreed that cover note/insurance policy issued by the insurance company on effecting/renewing the policy must be lodged with defendant bank by the borrower well in advance. The borrower also agreed to pay the premium for effecting and renewing the insurance policy covering all securities provided to the bank. 18. Parties also agreed that cover note/insurance policy issued by the insurance company on effecting/renewing the policy must be lodged with defendant bank by the borrower well in advance. The borrower also agreed to pay the premium for effecting and renewing the insurance policy covering all securities provided to the bank. 18. The agreement also shows that the hypothecated movables were all purchased/possessed by the borrower. It also provides that if the borrower fails to insure/renew the policy or fails to deliver the policy or receipt for premium to the bank, defendant bank shall be at liberty though not bound to effect such insurance at the expenses of the borrower. It also provides that the borrower shall not do or suffer to be done any act which may invalidate or avoid such insurance and all sum received under any such insurance shall be applied towards reinstating the security hypothecated at the option of the bank or be applied in or towards the liquidation of the balance due to the bank. It also provides that the borrower shall take out and keep in force all permits and licences required to be taken by any law for the time being in force for the purpose of maintaining, continuing the plying of vehicles and, if required, the borrower shall do everything necessary for transferring to and effectively vesting in the bank or any of its officers or nominee, all such permit and licences necessary. 19. Therefore, effectively, the agreement provided that it was the responsibility of the borrower, namely, plaintiffs, to insure against the fire, accident, theft and all other risks with the insurance company, as approved by the bank. The agreement does not say that the insurance has to be only by an insurer as indicated by the bank, but it only requires that insurer should be approved by the bank. Plaintiffs had the liberty to insure the hypothecated goods with any insurer it wanted to. Factually, between 14.01.2015 until 08.03.2017, there was no insurance policy. Therefore, the borrower, namely, plaintiffs, had already committed breach of its obligations under the agreement for loan with the bank. Therefore, when bank realized that there was no policy in place, it approached insurance company for insuring the goods/hypothecated security given in its favour by plaintiffs. Factually, between 14.01.2015 until 08.03.2017, there was no insurance policy. Therefore, the borrower, namely, plaintiffs, had already committed breach of its obligations under the agreement for loan with the bank. Therefore, when bank realized that there was no policy in place, it approached insurance company for insuring the goods/hypothecated security given in its favour by plaintiffs. The insurance company indicated premium payable as Rs.18,975/- and by virtue of the standing instructions given by plaintiffs as per the agreement which says “..... to effect such insurance at the expenses of the borrower”, the bank applied to insurance company for the cover. The insurance company, as requested by the bank, issued the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy (Ex.A7). The policy provides the name of the insured as “Corporation Bank” and Ms.J.Bhuvaneswari, who is partner of Shree Bhuvanam Knit Fab (P1). Even the address provides “account Shree Bhuvanam Knit Fab .... A/C”. The cover is from 08.03.2017 to 07.03.2018. Because plaintiffs did not take the insurance policy as required under the agreement, in terms of Clause 13 of the agreement for loan (Ex.B4), the bank effected the insurance at the expenses of the borrower. Admittedly, plaintiffs were aware about the insurance cover because their account has been debited to pay the insurance premium. Therefore, plaintiffs were also aware of the date on which the policy would come to an end, namely 07.03.2018. At the cost of repetition, this policy had to be taken by defendant bank only in view of the failure of plaintiffs of its primary responsibility to take the insurance cover. Therefore, the primary responsibility was also that of plaintiffs to effect the renewal because plaintiffs must certainly be aware that the policy was coming to an end on 07.03.2018. 20. Moreover, there is nothing to indicate that the bank worked as agent of the insurance company. Possibly the bank might have been given some brokerage out of the premium paid by plaintiffs, but that would not make the bank liable to get the policy renewed. As noted above, the responsibility was that of the borrower to get the policy renewed. Clause 13, as noted earlier, says should the borrower fail to insure/renew the policy, the bank shall be at liberty “though not bound” to effect such insurance at the expenses of the borrower. As noted above, the responsibility was that of the borrower to get the policy renewed. Clause 13, as noted earlier, says should the borrower fail to insure/renew the policy, the bank shall be at liberty “though not bound” to effect such insurance at the expenses of the borrower. Having agreed to this and having committed breach of the agreement, plaintiffs cannot put the blame on defendant bank and suggest that bank having failed to renew the policy, plaintiffs had suffered the loss. Admittedly, owner of the hypothecated property/security was plaintiffs. The loss of property was of plaintiffs. Bank's insurable interest was only to the extent that it would have lost the hypothecated property and not as owner of the property. 21. As observed by the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited v. Ratnagiri Gas and Power Privae Limited and others, (2024) 1 SCC 333 , relied upon by Shri Sriram, a commercial document cannot be interpreted in a manner that is at odds with the original purpose and intendment of the parties to the document. Plaintiffs arguments would entail reading in implied terms contrary to the contractual provisions which are otherwise clear. If the contract is capable of interpretation of its plain meaning with regard to the true intention of the parties, it will not be prudent to read implied terms on the understanding of a party, or by the court, with regard to the business efficacy. Paragraphs 36 and 37 of Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (supra) read as under: “36. A commercial document cannot be interpreted in a manner that is at odds with the original purpose and intendment of the parties to the document. A deviation from the plain terms of the contract is warranted only when it serves business efficacy better. The appellant's arguments would entail reading in implied terms contrary to the contractual provisions which are otherwise clear. Such a reading of implied conditions is permissible only in a narrow set of circumstances. This Court in Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. v. GMR Vemagiri Power Generation Ltd., (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 624, held as follows: “26. A commercial document cannot be interpreted in a manner to arrive at a complete variance with what ay originally have been the intendment of the parties. This Court in Transmission Corpn. of A.P. Ltd. v. GMR Vemagiri Power Generation Ltd., (2018) 2 SCC (Civ) 624, held as follows: “26. A commercial document cannot be interpreted in a manner to arrive at a complete variance with what ay originally have been the intendment of the parties. Such a situation can only be contemplated when the implied term can be considered necessary to lend efficacy to the terms of the contract. If the contract is capable of interpretation of its plain meaning with regard to the true intention of the parties it will not be prudent to read implied terms on the understanding of a party, or by the court, with regard to business efficacy.” 37. In the present context, bearing in mind the background of the establishment of the first respondent, and the shortfall of domestic gas for reasons beyond the control of the first respondent, such a deviation from the plan terms is not merited and militates against business efficacy as it has a detrimental impact on the viability of the first respondent.” 22. Shri Parthasarathy submitted, relying on Canara Bank v. Leatheroid Plastics Private Limited , 2020 (6) CTC 103 , that defendant bank not having alerted plaintiffs about renewal, defendant bank was liable to pay for the loss suffered by plaintiffs. 23. In our view, this judgment does not assist plaintiffs' case because that was a case where the bank had effected the insurance though it was not obligated to effect the insurance, but the bank had not taken out the policy covering the entire set of hypothecated assets. At the time of effecting the policy the bank had not alerted the borrower about "under insurance". In such circumstances, the Apex Court held that the bank was liable. But, in the case at hand, the borrower was obligated to take an insurance cover, however, the borrower did not and thereby committed breach of the term loan agreement. The bank, though was not bound for the period from 08.03.2017 to 07.03.2018, took out an insurance policy for the entire set of hypothecated assets and even paid the premium by debiting plaintiffs account. Plaintiffs were aware that policy was coming to an end on 07.03.2018 and, therefore, plaintiffs were obligated to effect renewal of the policy on or before 07.03.2018. Plaintiffs were aware that policy was coming to an end on 07.03.2018 and, therefore, plaintiffs were obligated to effect renewal of the policy on or before 07.03.2018. Plaintiffs should have on their own contacted the insurance company for renewal or should have insured the hypothecated movables with the insurance company approved by the bank, which plaintiffs did not. Therefore, in our view, as noted earlier, the judgment in the case of Canara Bank (supra) is of no help to plaintiffs. 24. As noted earlier, obtaining the insurance policy was the primary responsibility of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs should have paid the premium on their own. Only in the event of default, the bank could have obtained the insurance cover in order to safeguard its own interest. It is indeed a fact that from 14.01.2015 until 08.03.2017, plaintiffs had not even fulfilled, for reasons best known to them, their primary responsibility of bringing insurance cover under the loan agreement. Therefore, the bank to protect its interest took out the insurance cover for one year from 08.03.2017 to 07.03.2018. Plaintiffs, despite being aware, still did not choose to take an insurance cover thereafter for the succeeding years. For the failure of plaintiffs to act with due diligence, it cannot transfer the liability to the bank. 25. In the circumstances, in our view, (a) there was no duty on defendant bank to renew the policy; (b) primary obligation was on the part of plaintiffs to have the insurance policy renewed, in which, it failed; and, (c) the trial court erred in decreeing the suit in favour of plaintiffs. 26. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. 27. As regards costs, Shri Senthilkumar, counsel on record for plaintiffs, submitted that despite losing all machineries to fire, plaintiffs have paid the entire loan of the bank and, therefore, no costs should be imposed. 28. We accept the submission of plaintiffs. Therefore, no costs. 29. The Registry to refund the amount of Rs.1.00 Crore (Rupees One Crore only) deposited by defendant bank within one week of receiving application. The amount shall be refunded with accumulated interest, if any, without any deductions. Interim application stands closed.