GURUDATH M NAYAK Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant/petitioner herein obtained a fire policy from the respondent-Insurance Co. covering the risks in respect of the goods or materials kept in the proposed business premises. When the policy was in force, there was a fire on 21.6.2003 at about 7.00 p.m. due to which, the wall in the godown premises, which is away from the shop premises of the complainant, fell there by damaging the glass items kept in the god6wn. Report regarding the damage was sent to the Insurance Co., which appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss. The Surveyor in turn, assessed the loss and submitted his report. The Insurance Co., however, repudiated the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the damage caused in respect of the articles kept in the godown is not covered under the policy and, therefore, there is no liability on the part of the Insurance Co. to indemnify the loss, if any, suffered by the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, lodged a complaint with the District Forum which allowed the complaint in part directing the Insurance Co. to pay sum of Rs. 3,28,411 as compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. to the complainant. On an appeal filed by the OP-Insurance Co., the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore ('State Commission' for short) allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum on the ground that the insurance policy in question is in respect of the business premises of the complainant located at Ganesh Sadan, Museum Road, Bejoi, Mangalore and hence the loss suffered by the complainant in respect of the damage caused to the material kept in a different place other than the premises whose specific address is mentioned in the policy would not be covered. The challenge in the present revision petition is to this impugned order dated 9.3.2009 passed by the State Commission.

(2.) We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and respondents and have also perused the record particularly the proposal for the fire insurance as well as the policy including the policy schedule in question. Both the proposal as well as the policy clearly indicates address of the premises at Ganesh Sadan Building, Museum Road, Bejoi, Mangalore. There is no separate mention about any other premises by way of godown covered in the policy. This being the clear and specific position emanating from the basic document, no fault could be found with the impugned order passed by the State Commission. We do not find any other valid ground on which our interference with the impugned order could be justified. The revision petition, therefore, is liable for dismissal and it is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.