LALITA SHIVAJI JAGTA Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where she had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Insurance Company.

(2.) Very briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant purchased a paper copier with accessories, after obtaining a loan from Bank of India and as per terms of the 'loan' the paper copier was got insured with the second respondent. First policy had been taken from Jan. 1990 to Jan. 1991 and second policy was taken from 30 Jan. 1991 to 29.1.1992. This photocopier was stolen from the shop of the complainant located in Sessions Court compound at Baramati in April, 1991. When the claim was preferred with the second respondent, it was repudiated on the ground that the claim is not covered by the terms of the policy for the simple reason that in terms of the policy issued for the valid period, the copier was insured while in 'Tehshil Kachaheri Baramati', whereas admittedly the loss of the copier occurred at 'Sessions-Courts compound at Baramati' which are two different locations. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and after going through the two judgments of this Commission, namely, I (1992) CPJ 232 (NC), The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Annpurna Krishi Kendra, FA No. 171/1991 decided on 23.3.1992 and II (1995) CPJ 135 (NC), S. Rathinavelu v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others, FA No. 119 of 1993 decided on 25.4.1995, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us.

(3.) We heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that as per the policy document, it was a 'Shop-Keepers Insurance Policy' and the place had been given as Tehshil Kachehari, Baramati. Section 1 of the 'Shop-keepers Insurance Policy Clause' reads as under: