A SAMINATHAN Vs. J KAMALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the revision against the order dated 15.7.2005 of Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna allowing appeal against the order dated 11.8.1998 of a District Forum, the issue which arises from determination is if the boundary wall of godown was or was not covered by the policy issued by respondent/opposite party INsurance Company. Pursuant to the order dated 6.1.2006 the petitioner/complainant has filed the INsurance Policy together with schedule (copy at page 32). IN the schedule the details of the properties and cash insured by the INsurance Company have been set out Schedule would show that the building of godown including boundary wall which was alleged to have collapsed in a cyclone on 24.3.1993, was not covered under the policy.

(2.) CONTENTION advanced by Mr. Arunab Suman for petitioner was that the petitioner is not bound by the said schedule as it had not been supplied the policy along with its annexures. It is not in dispute that the validity of policy was from 11.6.1992 to 10.6.1993. Damage to boundary wall due to cyclone was allegedly caused on 24.3.1993. There was thus gap of more than 9 months in between the commencement of policy and the incident. During that period the petitioner is not shown to have not sent any letter to the respondent/Insurance Company complaining of non-receipt of policy with annexures. In that backdrop plea of non-receipt of policy with schedule by the petitioner cannot be accepted. Decision in Concept Marketing v. Harvinder Singh Saini & Anr., II (2000) CPJ 332, Sr. Divisonal Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. v. Pharmchem Laboratories, II (1993) CPJ 710, and Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune v. Nanasahib Nagoji Bhosale, AIR 1995 Bom. 164 relied on behalf of petitioner being distinguishable of facts have no applicability to the facts of present case. Since boundary wall of the godown was not covered under the policy, the claim made was not payable as rightly held by the State Commission. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order under challenge warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.