KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                            VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM                                                                                                                   

  APPEAL NO.191/08

                             JUDGMENT DATED 10.1.2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU                --  PRESIDENT

United India Insurance Company

Thamarasseri Branch                                         --  APPELLANT

    (By Adv.R.Jagadish Kumar)

                 Vs.

United India Insurance Company

Divisional Office -1

L.M.S.Compound, Palayam,                              --  RESPONDENT

Thiruvananthapuram.

       (By Adv.Anad Kumar)

                                                JUDGMENT       

JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties/Insurance Company in OP.24/05 in the file of CDRF, Kozhikode.  The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.70,775/- towards the assured sum and compensation  of Rs.1000/- and cost of Rs.500/-.

2. The matter is regarding the fire policy with respect to 3 shop rooms and stock of  copra, coconut, rubber sheets and areaconut etc. that were damaged in fire. 

          3. It is the contention of the opposite parties that manufacturing process is not covered and only the building and stock is covered and  that the fire emenated from the drying unit.          

          4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 & 2, RW1 & 2, Exts. A1 to A7 and B1 to B3.

          5. The Forum has held that it was the duty of the opposite parties to examine the building before issuing the policy and that it is the duty of the opposite parties again to inspect the property at the time of the renewal and that  the above lapse on the part of the opposite parties cannot be made use  of to repudiate the claim.  The appellants were   directed to pay the amount as assessed by the surveyor.

          6. We find that the policy of insurance being one of  good faith  the reliance placed on  the  failure to inspect the premises cannot be highlighted as done by the Forum.  Further, the appellants have relied on the duplicate copy of the policy produced in the appeal; wherein it is specifically mentioned vide  Clause 1 A (2) that the policy excluded destruction while undergoing any heating or drying process.  In the instant case, it was from the heating chamber that the fire was generated.   We find that the above policy as well as the proposal form has not been produced by the opposite parties before the Forum. 

          7. In the circumstances, we find that it would be only just to provide an opportunity to the opposite parties to produce the above documents and attempt to substantiate their contention.

          8. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside on condition that the   appellant/opposite parties pay a sum of Rs.7,500/- to the complainant towards costs.  On payment of costs, the Forum will permit both sides to produce documents and re-agitate the matter.  The case stands posted before the Forum on 11.3.2011.

          The office will forward the LCR to the Forum along with the copy of this order.

JUSTICE  K.R.UDAYABHANU --  RESIDENT