UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAVENDRA DWIVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 30.9.2004 of M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal allowing appeal against the order dated 29.10.2003 of a District Forum and directing the petitioner/opposite party No. 1 to pay amount of Rs. 2,50,000 with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint i.e., 10.7.2002 till payment to respondent No. 1 / complainant.

(2.) IT was alleged that respondent No. 1 after obtaining financial assistance from respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2. Bank under P.M.R. Y. scheme started business under the name and style of Grihasthi Kirana and General Store and purchased a shopkeeper's policy for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000 for the period from 22.2.2001 to 21.2.2002 from the petitioner Insurance Company. Business was initially run for two years at the shop of Ramratan Gupta, Satna Road, Amarpatan. Thereafter it was shifted to shop No. 7 in Indira Complex, Ramnagar Road, Amarpatan. It was alleged that on 16.1.2002 a fire took place in that shop resulting into loss of Rs. 3,47,426 to the stocks in the shop. Petitioner was immediately informed of the fire. On non-settling claim the respondent No. 1 filed complaint seeking certain reliefs which was contested by the petitioner. Issuance of shopkeeper's policy was not disputed. However, it was alleged that it was the stock kept in the shop at Shivpurva, Tehsil Amarpatan and not in shop No. 7, Indira Complex, Ramnagar Road, Amarpaten which was insured by respondent No. 1. This stand though was accepted by the District Forum but was disbelieved by the State Commission while allowing appeal in the manner indicated above.

(3.) NOTHING has been mentioned against the columns of full business (shop) address' and 'nature of business/trade occurring after the said column of name of proposer in full. Against the column of description of property words "on stocks of all kinds of Kirana and General Goods" are written. Obviously, in aforesaid columns village shivpurva refers to the home address of respondent No. 1 and not the place where the respondent No. 1 was carrying business. Thus, I endorse the finding returned by the State Commission that there is no mention of the address of shop in the cover note. From the affidavits of Ram Vishwas, Rajmani Singh, Ram Swaroop Advasi and Ramnath Singh filed by way of evidence before the District Forum it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that respondent No. 1 never carried business in village Shirpurva under the name and style of Grihasthi Kirana and General Store. It could, therefore, be the stock kept in shop No. 7, Indira Complex, Ramnagar Road, Amarpatan only which was insured by respondent No. 1 as averred by Shiv Kumar Pandey in his affidavit. In the light of said evidence and probability the submission referred to above advanced by Mr. Tripathi has to be repelled being without any merit. State Commission had rightly awarded amount of Rs. 2,50,000 being the insured sum with interest @ 6% p.a. to respondent No. 1.