V I G Traders vs National Insurance Company Ltd

THE petitioner had taken a policy for fire and allied perils, which included furniture, fixtures, fittings and stock in trade as also burglary, housebreaking in respect of business/shop, 783/13, Krishna Palace, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut, UP. The complainant had taken his goods from the shop to a stall in the fair where fire took place and the goods in the stall were destroyed in fire. The complainant had filed claim before the insurance company, which was repudiated on the ground that the claim is not tenable since loss did not occur at the insured''s premises mentioned in the policy. The District Forum had allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 7,07,200 with 12% interest per annum as also compensation of Rs. 10,000 and cost of Rs. 5,000 towards litigation.

THE order of the District Forum was challenged by the OP before the State Commission. The State Commission found that in the policy insured place was 783,/13, Krishna Palace, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut, U.P. and the insurance policy did not cover the goods at any other place other than the insured place.

LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner argued before us that the policy in question covered the stock in trade not only at the business premises mentioned in the insurance policy but at any other place where the stock in trade was kept by the complainant. We do not find any merit whatsoever in this submission of the Counsel for the petitioner since as per policy the stock in trade furniture, fixture and fittings were covered at the insured''s business premises/shop, namely, 783/13, Krishna Palace, Begum Bridge Road, Meerut, U.P. only. The stock in trade kept at the different place other than the insured premises was certainly not covered under the policy in question. The State Commission has, therefore, very rightly held that the stock in trade kept in the stall in the fair, which were destroyed by fire, was not covered by the policy. We have no reason to take a different view in the matter.

IN view of the above, we do not find that any interference is called for in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as we do not find any material irregularity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission. The revision is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. R.P. dismissed.