ROHINI ENTERPRISES Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), the Complainant, a proprietorship concern, calls in question the legality and correctness of the order dated 21.12.2015 passed by the HP Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla in First Appeal No. 166 of 2015. By the impugned order the State Commission has overturned the order dated 18.08.2015, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Shimla in Complaint No. 208 of 2011 and has consequently dismissed the Complaint filed by the Petitioner. In the first instance, while accepting the Complaint filed by the Petitioner, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the United India Insurance Company Ltd. (for short "the Insurance Company"), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, in repudiating his claim for indemnification of the loss suffered by him in respect of the apple trays which were stated to have been stored in the insured premises and were destroyed in the fire, which took place on 10.02.2010, the District Forum had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Petitioner a sum of Rs. 6,30,800/- along-with interest @ 9% pa. from the date of filing of the Complaint and also the litigation expenses, quantified at Rs. 5,000/-.

(2.) The short controversy arising for consideration is as to whether the State Commission was justified in coming to the conclusion that the said apple trays were not covered under the Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy, as the same could not be treated as "other related items", mentioned in the description of the property insured which reads as follows:-

(3.) Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record, we are of the opinion that there is no substance in the present Revision Petition. Dealing with the afore-noted question and taking note of the description of the items in column No. 12 of the Policy, the state Commission has come to the conclusion that "other related items", referred to in the Policy, would mean the items related with the described items, viz. Pesticides, Insecticides, Fungicides, Seeds, Agri/Horticulture Implements, Organic Manure etc. and therefore, said trays could not be treated as "related items" with the aforesaid items described in the policy. Having come to the said conclusion the State Commission went on to examine the claim preferred by the Complainant, on merits, and held as follows:-