JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA, MEMBER This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against Respondent / Opposite Party challenging the impugned Order dated 09.04.2018 passed by the State Commission, Delhi, in First Appeal bearing No. 229 of 2015. Vide such Order, the State Commission allowed the Appeal while setting aside the Order dated 16.07.2014 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-VI, I.P. Estate, New Delhi in Case No. CC/689/10. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant, proprietor of M/s. Jai Durga Polymers, was insured under ‘Burglary Insurance Policy’ bearing No. OG-08-1101-4010-00000852 from 08.11.2007 till 07.11.2008 on yearly premium of Rs.4,045/- in respect of the stocks stored at T-5/244, Mangolpuri Industrial Estate, Mangolpuri, New Delhi. The present Policy was a renewal of the previous Policy. The Complainant was having Factory premises at T-5/244, Mangolpuri Industrial Estate, Mangolpuri, New Delhi, at the time of issuance of the Policy and later in May, 2008, the Factory was shifted to H-25, Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi, Delhi-41 and necessary intimation with regard to change in address was given to the Opposite Party vide letter dated 16.05.2008 sent by UPC. The theft took place on 03.09.2008 in the Factory of the Complainant and he suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.3.5 Lakhs. Consequently, the claim was filed with the Opposite Party. However, the same was rejected on 24.11.2008 on the ground that the loss of M/s. Jai Durga Polymers had taken place at H-25, Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi, Delhi-41 which was not the premise in respect of which the risk was covered as the risk was covered only in respect of premises of M/s. Jai Durga Polymers at T-5/244, Mangolpuri Industrial Estate, New Delhi. It was averred by the Complainant that the ground of rejection is illegal and arbitrary since the Opposite Party was aware about the shift in Factory premises of the Complainant. The Complainant also sent a Legal Notice dated 21.07.2009. However, there was neither any reply to the same nor any steps were taken to recall the rejection. Consequently, the Complaint was filed before the District Forum alleging deficiency in services by the Opposite Party in not making payment to the Complainant under the Policy and seeking payment of Rs.3.5 Lakhs along with interest @24% p.a. from 04.09.2008 till the date of its realisation. 3. The Opposite Party appeared before the Ld. District Forum and resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations thereby denying deficiency in service on its part. It was contended by the Opposite Party that no intimation was given to them of any alleged shifting of the Factory. It was further contended that till the time an endorsement is made in the Policy schedule, there is no change in the insured premises. Further, it was averred that as per Clause 2.3 of the Policy, ‘Insured Premises’ means the place named in the Policy schedule and it was the duty of the Complainant to get the change made in the Policy schedule and the Complainant at no point of time conveyed the change of address. It was also averred that the Complainant had also failed to provide relevant information required for assessment of the alleged loss. It is further stated that the alleged Legal Notice was sent eight months after the repudiation, no amount of alleged loss was mentioned in it and it did not call for a reply. Hence, it was stated that the Complainant is not entitled for any claim. Therefore, the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with exemplary costs. 4. The Ld. District Forum vide its Order dated 16.07.2014 allowed the Complaint and held that the Opposite Party had repudiated the claim without any solid justification except to deprive the Complainant from a genuine right of claim. The Ld. District Forum had directed the Opposite Party to pay the claim of Rs.3,50,000/- along with 9% interest from the date of claim till realisation and Rs.75,000/- as compensation for harassment and litigation charges. 5. Aggrieved by the above Order, First Appeal bearing No. 229 of 2015 was filed by Appellant/ Opposite Party against the Respondent/ Complainant before the State Commission, Delhi. 6. The Ld. State Commission vide impugned Order dated 09.04.2018 allowed the Appeal while setting aside the Order of Ld. District Forum and observed inter alia:- “…11. This goes to show that the factum about communicating through U.P.C. cannot be relied upon and if that be the case, the argument of the Respondent that the intimation regarding change of address has been sent through U.P.C., and served upon them, cannot be accepted. To put it differently the Insurance Company remained uninformed about the change of address…” 7. It was further observed by the Ld. State Commission - “…….13. This leads us to conclude that the intimation regarding change of address of the factory establishment for the relevant period was not duly conveyed and if that be the case, the claim preferred on account of theft, done on the new address of the factory establishment, is not payable since the Insurance Company would be liable to consider the claim if any, arising out of theft on the premises at the address available on their records. The details regarding the change of address of the factory establishment from Mangolpuri to Peeragarhi cannot be presumed to have been sent…” 8. Hence, the present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against the above-mentioned impugned Order of the Ld. State Commission. 9. Heard the Ld. Counsels for Petitioner and Respondent. Perused the material available on record. 10. The Ld. State Commission reversed the decision of the District Forum as it was of the view that the alleged change of location was not communicated by the Petitioner/Complainant to the Insurance Company, on account of which it was justified in repudiating the Insurance claim, since the goods in question according to the Policy were located in the premises at “Mangol Puri”, while the District Forum had been of the view that the “…..Complainant had already intimated the Opposite Party vide letter dated 16.5.2008, as per Exhibits attached with the complaint with proof of delivery as per Exh. C3. The OP should have verified and changed the risk venue in its records, or informed Complainant about the procedure. There is no evidence by OP to show any steps taken after receipt of change of address letter…….” 11. Thus, the view of the District Forum was that change of address/risk venue had been specifically communicated to the Respondent/Opposite party, and the proof of delivery of the same was Annexure/Exh. C3. We have seen the documents in question marked Annexure/Exh. C3 collectively as maintained in the original record of the District Forum, which was received in view of our Order passed earlier on 30.1.2023. The first page of Annexure C3 happens to be a Photostat copy of the letter dated 16.5.2008 which was purportedly sent to the Respondent/Insurance Company to intimate the shifting of the Complainant’s factory from “T-5/244, Mangol Puri Industrial Area, Phase-I, Delhi, to “H-25 Udyog Nagar, New Delhi-110041 near Peeragarhi”. The next page(64) of the Paper Book happens to be the purported receipt of the letter supposedly sent under Certificate of Posting by the Petitioner. It indeed bears the postal seal mark of 16.5.2008. 12. But it is the categorical case of the Respondent/Opposite Party that no such change of address/risk venue was ever communicated to it by the Complainant. The specific averment in this regard was made in Para 7 of its Written Version, which was supported by the Affidavit of the Assistant Manager(Claims) namely Ashutosh Singh, in the Respondent-Insurance Company. Such Affidavit was filed by way of evidence before the District Forum on 16.12.2011 and in Para 3 of the same, the said witness had specifically stated that “No intimation of any alleged shifting was ever delivered to the Opposite Party. Had the same been received by the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party would have inspected the new premises and made an endorsement in the Policy Schedule…..” Further, in Para 7 of the Affidavit in Evidence, it was stated by the deponent, Ashutosh Singh, Assistant Manager - “7. That the Complainant failed to inform the Opposite Party about the alleged shifting of business premises thereby not letting the Opposite Party inspect the alleged new premises. The Complainant also failed to get the insured premises changed in the Policy Schedule. The complainant has at no point of time conveyed the change of address and thus is not entitled to any claim under the policy terms and conditions of the policy. The Complainant cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own laches. Even if the Complainant had shifted the business to the new premises, since there was no intimation given to the opposite parties regarding the change of address, and thus no change had been made in the contract between the parties, the Complainant is not entitled to any claim from the Opposite Party. The ground for repudiation of the claim is perfectly valid and in tune with contract between the parties. It is reiterated that the Complainant has also failed to substantiate the claim and furnish information/ document required for assessment of the alleged loss.” 13. In its impugned judgment, the Ld. State Commission has referred two decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. In the matter of “Shiv Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors, (1994) 4 SCC 445”, it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that – “We have not felt safe to decide the controversy at hand on the basis of the certificates produced before us, as it is not difficult to get such postal seals at any point of time. To assure our mind that the notices had really been sent out to the workmen concerned, we perused the application which had been filed by the management seeking permission. We did so because Rule 76-A(2) requires that the application shall be made in triplicate and copies of the same shall be served by the employer on the workmen concerned and proof to that effect shall also be submitted by the employer along with the application. But the application (Annexure A) has not mentioned anything about proof of service to the workmen concerned. The statement in the counter-affidavit that proof of service had been submitted to the specified authority has not satisfied our mine in this regard.” 14. In “State of Maharashtra Vs. Rashid Babu Bhai Mulani, as reported in MANU/SC/0253/2006”, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had held – “A certificate of posting obtained by a sender is not comparable to a receipt for sending a communication by registered post. When a letter is sent by registered post, a receipt with serial number is issued and a record is maintained by the Post Office But when a mere certificate of posting is sought, no record is maintained by the Post Office either about the receipt of the letter or the certificate issued. The ease with which such certificates can be procured by affixing ante-dated seal with the connivance of any employee of the Post Office is a matter of concern. The Department of Posts may have to evolve some procedure whereby a record in regard to the issuance of certificate is regularly maintained showing a serial number, date, sender’s name and addressee’s name to avoid misuse. In the absence of such a record, a certificate of posting may be of very little assistance, where the dispatch of such communications is disputed or denied as in this case. Be that as it may.” 15. In this manner, the Apex Court in both those cases had not accepted the version of the alleged senders that disputed communications had in fact been satisfactorily communicated to the purported addresses. 16. We are also in agreement with this view of the State Commission, and this is because even otherwise it has been held by this Commission in various decisions that merely sending any notices/communications in relation to any Insurance Policy itself does not render the Insurer liable to allow a claim unless the relevant “endorsement of change of location” counter signed by an official of the Insurer” is made. This was the view of this Commission in the following decisions – 1. S. Rathinavelu Vs. New India Assce Co. Ltd. II 1995 CPJ 135 NC - “Notices & communications in relation to policy must be given to insurer in writing and insured to get an endorsement of change of location counter signed by an authorised official of the Insurer.” 2. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. P.R. Automobiles 1 2010 CPJ 83 NC - “Mere receipt of request for change of address not sufficient to make policy applicable to changed premises. Till a separate endorsement covering the new location, the insurer is not liable.” 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Venkateshwara Distributors, II 2011 CPJ 120 NC - “Mere intimation of change of location is not a valid acceptance of such offer by insurer. Insured should obtain Endorsement of insurer allowing the change.” 17. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the failure of the Complainant to firstly send the alleged communication intimating the change of risk venue of the Insured merchandise/articles from Mangol Puri to Udyog Nagar, Peeragarhi, by some unimpeachable mode of delivery such as Registered Post, in which event the alleged recipient could not have been in a position to flatly deny any such receipt, and besides that, his failure to get the relevant endorsement to be recorded in the Policy document under the Authority of any competent Officer of the Insurance Company, is certainly fatal to his claim in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as also those of this Commission as mentioned in the preceding paragraph 13 to 16. 18. We, therefore, find no grounds to interfere with the Impugned Order of the Ld. State Commission. The Revision Petition is consequently dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. 19. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous. | 
