SHIV CONFECTIONARY HOUSE THOUGH ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR Vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO. THROUGH ITS PERSON INCHARGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is the original complainant in this case has filed this revision petition challenging the order dated 31.1.2013 passed by the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in FA No.1315 of 2010 whereby learned State Commission allowed the first appeal filed by respondent No.1/opposite party No.1 and set aside the order dated 23.4.2010 passed by learned District Consumer Redressal Forum, Fatehgarh Sahib in complaint No.88 -A. The District Forum vide its order had allowed the complaint of the petitioner. By its impugned order in appeal, the State Commission reversed it by holding that it is proved that the premises where the fire took place were not covered under the policy and hence the claim of the petitioner was rightly repudiated by respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is HDFC Bank which was OP No.2 before the District Forum.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the facts of this case which are relevant for disposal of this revision petition are that the petitioner had obtained a cash credit limit from respondent No.2 Bank against the stock and the entire stock of the petitioner was hypothecated with respondent No.2 Bank. It was pleaded that respondent No.2 Bank had arranged one insurance policy from respondent No.1 insurance co. w.e.f. 26.4.2008 to 25.4.2009 covering the stock of the petitioner hypothecated with respondent No.2. A fire broke out at the premises of the petitioner on 31.10.2008 and the stock of the premises got damaged. The petitioner lodged claim with respondent No.1 for Rs.11 lakhs which came to be repudiated by the respondent insurance co. on the ground that the location where the stock was kept and where the fire took place was not covered under the insurance policy. According to the complainant/petitioner, the respondent No.2 Bank had given the cash credit limit against the stock stored in the premises where the fire broke up and thus the stock was clearly insured. It was also pleaded that the shop which the respondent insurance co. is supposed to have insured is not capable of holding the stock of the value of Rs.16 lakhs. It could hold stocks worth only Rs.2 lakhs. Since the claim was repudiated, the petitioner filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service on the part of respondent No.1 seeking directions to pay a sum of Rs.11 lakhs along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 31.10.2008 besides cost and compensation.

(3.) THE short issue which has arisen before us for our consideration is as to whether the claim of the petitioner in respect of damage to the stock in fire stored at the location not covered by the insurance policy can be allowed.