1. These three Revision Petitions No.320, 321 and 322 of 2013 have been filed under Section 21(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘the Act’) by the Petitioner against impugned orders dated 16.10.2012 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad (the ‘State Commission’) in First Appeal Nos. 234, 254 and 886 of 2011 respectively wherein the State Commission modified the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kurnool (‘District Forum’) dated 17.02.2011. 2. Since the facts and questions of law involved in these Revision Petitions are substantially similar, all the Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common Order. For ease of reference, Revision Petition No.320 of 2013 shall be considered as the lead case. 3. For convenience, the parties involved in this matter are referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the District Forum. "M/s Satya Traders" is recognized as the Complainant. "The National Insurance Co. Ltd,” is denoted as the Opposite Party No. 1/ the Insurer (OP-1) and “State Bank of India” is acknowledged as the Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 (OP-2). 4. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that the Complainant obtained Shopkeepers Insurance Policy No.551001/48/ 09/9800000056 from OP-1 valid from 17.07.2009 to 16.07.2010 for total Rs.8,14,200/- (Rs.4 Lakh for Fire & Allied Perils + Rs.4 Lakh for Burglary & House Breaking + Rs.8,500/- for Money Insurance (in transit) + Rs.4,000 for Money Insurance (in safe) + Rs.1700 for Baggage Insurance). On 02.10.2009 the Complainant’s shop submerged in floods and entire stock was damaged in the premises of the Complainant at D.No.13/241, Mandi Bazar, Kurnool - 518001 and loss was to the extent of Rs.5,12,250. A Claim was filed with OP-1 through OP-2. Vide letter dated 10.03.2010 his claim was repudiated on the ground that policy pertains to D. No.13/82 whereas the stock damaged was in D. No.13/241, which is at a different place. The Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum. 5. In their reply filed before District Forum, OP-1 contended that the policy pertains to D. No.13/82 whereas the loss occurred in D. No.13/241. He might have shifted the entire stock from D. No.3/82 to 3/241 without intimation, which was mandatory as per conditions of the policy. Therefore, there is no liability of the insurer towards the loss. As per the surveyor report, the net loss was assessed Rs.99,267 on average basis. There was no deficiency in service. 6. In their reply, OP-2 Bank resisted the claim and, however, admitted that the Complainant was running the business and availed cash credit limit of Rs.2 Lakhs on 15.11.2008. The property bearing No. 13/241, Mundi Bazar, Kurnool was also mortgaged towards security for the loan amount. The stocks lying in the premises were hypothecated to it as primary security. The stocks were insured on 08.07.2009 with OP-1 insurance company by paying Rs.1,769/- as premium. As per the procedure, the insurance company had to send two copies of the policy both to the Complainant as well as to the Bank and it received the policy copy. It was only a mediator and had nothing to do with the claim. The Complainant had never brought to its notice about wrong mentioning of door number in the policy as ‘13/82’ instead of ‘13/241’. The stocks kept in the shop bearing No.’13/241’ was submerged in the floods on 02.10.2009. There was no deficiency in service on its part and prayed for dismissal of the complaint against it with costs. 7. The learned District Forum vide order dated 17.02.2011 partly allowed the complaint with the following directions: “In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties jointly to pay Rs.99,267/- towards compensation for the damaged stock, Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards the cost of the case, payable within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.” (Extracted from translated copy) 8. Being aggrieved, all parties filed their First Appeals No. 234, 254 and 886 of 2011 against the order of the District Forum dated 17.02.2011 before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 16.10.2012, passed the following order: “13) The points that arise for consideration are: i. In between the insurance company and the bank which was instrumental for mentioning wrong door No. where stocks were lying? ii. In between them, who was liable or whether both of them were liable to pay for the damage? iii. What is the compensation the complainant is entitled to? 14) It is an undisputed fact that the complainant has been running the business at D.No. 13/241, Mundy Bazar, Kurnool under the name and style ‘Sri Satya Traders'. They have availed loan from Op2 bank hypothecating its stocks and insured it for Rs. 4 lakhs under Shop Keepers' Policy Ex. A1. The said stock was hypothecated to the bank for obtaining loan. It is not in dispute that on 2.10.2009 floods inundated the Kurnool town and the entire stock of the complainant was damaged. The complainant informed both to the insurance company as well as the bank about the loss. 15) The insurance company appointed Sri K. Giri Kumar, Surveyor & Lass Assessor who visited the premises at D. No. 13/241' and noted that stock worth Rs.4,82,491.83 was existing though the insurance policy was taken for Rs. 4 lakhs. He found the damage of stock was worth Rs.1,29,393/-. In view of the fact that the stocks were insured for 82.90% of its actual value he assessed the loss on the basis of average at Rs.1,29,393 x 0.8290 Rs. 1,07,267. He deducted the policy excess at Rs. 10,000/- and arrived at Rs.97,267/ He added the segregation and loss minimization charges at Rs.2,000/- and arrived the net loss at Rs.99,267/-. However, he noted that there was discrepancy in the door No by mentioning: “On going through the policy, discrepancy was observed in Door No. of the insured shop is 13/241. It is observed in property document, documents given to the bankers and also in VAT registration certificate. Except in the policy, the said door No. was nowhere observed. By studying all the relevant documents, I came to the conclusion that the door No. mentioned in the policy might be a typographical mistake." 16) When the said fact was brought to the notice of the bank, it addressed a letter to the insurance company under Ex. B3 by mentioning: “With reference to the above and your letter dt. 15.2.2010, we have to advise you that the present premises of the above policy is 13/241, Mandy Bazar. The loan account opened with us, when they were at the premises of D.No. 13/82. Meanwhile they have shifted to the present premises i.e., 13/241, Mandy Bazar. We have noted the change of the address in our books, erroneously, we have not advised you for the change of address at the time of renewal of the policy and the same thing is occurring at the time of renewal of the policy. We confirm that the present address of the party is D.No. 13/241, Mandy Bazar." (emphasis ours) 17) From this, it is beyond doubt that non-information of shift of premises was due to the fault of the bank. The complainant has no say in the matter. The bank itself has deducted the premium and had taken the policy for the hypothecated goods by mentioning the premises particulars. Though in one breath the bank admits its mistake, to get over payment of the amount it alleges that the insurance company had to send two copies of the policy one to the complainant and another to the bank, and it is for the complainant to verify and bring to its notice if there is any mistake. Therefore it has no liability. 18) At the cost of repetition, we may state that for the fault committed by the bank, the complainant cannot be made to suffer. Had there been a mistake with the complainant, it is altogether different. The policy was kept with the bank. The surveyor was deputed after the loss was caused. He had categorically observed that the complainant was not at fault. He was doing business where the stocks were kept. The bank had taken the hypothecation of stocks kept in the premises. 19) At this juncture, it is important to note the location of shop was not incorporated correctly in the policy. The bank after finding its mistake addressed a letter to the insurance company under Ex. B3 to change the address. When it had admitted, that erroneously it did not advise the insurance company to note the change of address, necessarily it had to take the responsibility for the said mistake. 20) In somewhat similar case the National Commission in "Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. P.R. Automobiles & Oils and Anr. Reported in [1 (2010) CPJ 83 (NC)), observed: "assuming that the letter dated 30.10.1998 was sent by the complainant and was received by the Insurance Company before the date of peril, it is an admitted position that the Insurance Company had not made any endorsement in the policy document in regard to the change of address before the date of peril. To make such endorsement in respect of new location is entirely in the discretion of the insurer. In the case of S. Rathinavelu us. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. II (1995) CPJ 135 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission unambiguously held that "mere receipt of a request for change in address is not sufficient to make the policy applicable to the changed premises. It is required to be incorporated in the policy by way of a separate endorsement and till then, no risk is assumed in respect of the new location. To make such endorsement in respect of new location is entirely in the discretion of the insurer That decision was made applicable by Hon'ble National Commission in the aforesaid case of P.R. automobile (supra) and it was observed that the insurer was not liable. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deokar Exports Put. Ltd. vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1 (2009) CPJ 6 (SC) in paragraph No. 11 has observed that "a policy of insurance is a contract based on an offer (proposal) and an acceptance." The policy does not cover the premises that was damaged. Therefore the repudiation was just. As far as insurance company is concerned it was not liable to pay any amount. 21) Coming to the liability of the bank when it had admitted its fault, there is deficiency in service. It had to reimburse whatever the loss the complainant had sustained. It cannot get over by stating that it was only a mistake. But for the mistake the complainant could have got the amount from the insurance company. The complainant is a beneficiary under the policy. Therefore the bank had to reimburse the loss caused to the complainant. The bank did not dispute that the stocks worth Rs. 4 lakhs was hypothecated to it. The surveyor noted the following damages. The surveyor noted that the complainant was submitting the monthly VAT returns to the concerned authorities. Total value of stock present as on 3.5.2009. Commodity Qty. Rate Amount 1. Redgram dal 214 bags 3042.82 6,51,163.48 2. Bengalgram dal 5 bags 1750.00 8,750.00 3. Blackgram dal 28 bags 2650.46 74,212.88 4. Wheat Ravva 79 bags 626.27 49,475.33 5. Wheat flour 56 bags 731.65 40,972.48 6. Maida 94 bags 826.08 77,651.52 7. Idly Ravva 47 bags 759.80 35,710.60 8. Bombay Ravva 14 bags 831.10 11,635.40 9. Chirati Ravva 48 bags 849.42 40,772.16 10. Wheat 1 bag 846.15 846.15 11. Coconut Oil 15 cases 600.00 9,000.00 12. Palmolive 30 boxes 465.14 13,954.32 ------------------ 10,22,894.24 -------------------- Stock in the shop: Commodity Qty. Rate Amount 1. Redgram dal 104 bags 3042.82 3,16,453.28 2. Bengalgram dal ---- ------- ------- 3. Blackgram dal 07 bags 2650.46 18,553.22 4. Wheat Ravva 79 bags 626.27 49,506.93 5. Wheat flour 48 bags 731.65 35,119.20 6. Maida 60 bags 826.08 49,564.80 7. Idly Ravva 07 bags 759.80 5,318.60 8. Bombay Ravva 04 bags 831.10 3,324.40 9. Chirati Ravva ----- ------ ------ 10. Wheat ----- ------ ------ 11. Coconut Oil ----- ------ ------ 12. Palmolive 10 boxes 465.14 4,651.40 ------------------- 4,82,491.83 ------------------- Valuation: All the contents of the shop are insured for Rs. 4 lakhs. Whereas the value of goods present on the date of occurrence in the shop is arrived as Rs. 4,82,491.83 ps. Hence the stocks were insured for 82.90% of its actual value. So, the average clause is applicable. Value of stock was arrived in above and hence the value of stock in the godown is Rs. 5.40.402.17. Assessment of loss: Cost of 23 bags of red gram dal Rs. 69,954.86 Cost of 7 bags of black gram dal Rs. 18,553.22 Cost of 15 bags of wheat ravva Rs. 9,394.05 Cost of 12 bags of wheat flour Rs. 8,779.80 Cost of 18 bags of maida Rs. 14,869.44 Cost of 7 bags of idly ravva Rs. 5,318.60 Cost of 3 bags of Bombay ravva Rs. 2,493.30 --------------------------- Total Rs. 1,29,393.27 Loss on average Rs. 1,29,393.27 x 0.8290 Rs. 1,07,267.02 Less: Policy excess Rs. 10,000.00 --------------------------- Total Rs. 97,267.02 Add: Segregation and loss minimization Charges Rs. 2,000.00 ------------------------ Net loss assessed: Rs. 99,267.02 =============== The complainant had categorically stated that the entire stock was damaged and submerged in the flood waters. The surveyor in his report at para-7 clearly stated that "by its nature materials like wheat products (ravva, maida and atta) and dal has the quality of absorbing water when contacted with water. The materials were drenched in mud water and so the affected stock may not be possible for consumption. 22) In the light of above facts, we do not subscribe to the estimate of loss made by the surveyor. He gave his own deductions. Obviously he intended to award some compensation. He did not depict correct picture. Though the complainant had claimed Rs.5,12,250/- the policy was only for Rs. 4 lakhs. The claim of the complainant cannot be more than the amount for which he had taken policy. The claim was denied solely on the basis of surveyor's report. It is ex-facie faulty. The complainant has rightly rejected the sum of Rs. 99,257/- estimated by the surveyor. The Dist. Forum did not consider the report of the surveyor. It had adopted whatever the surveyor had stated. Even it did not consider the fact that the entire stock was spoiled. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant was entitled to the value of stocks for which the insurance policy was given. A loan of Rs. 4 lakhs was also granted on taking hypothecation of stocks. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the entire amount for which insurance policy was taken. In fact he lost the stocks worth Rs.5,40,402/-. However, in the view of the fact that the policy was taken only for Rs. 4 lakhs, necessarily the claim has to be restricted to Rs. 4 lakhs. The claim is neither excessive nor on high side. 23) In the result FA 254 of 2011 filed by the complainant is allowed in part, modifying the order of the Dist. Forum. Consequently the complaint is allowed against Op2 bank directing it to pay Rs. 4 lakhs to the complainant with interest @ 9% p.a., from date of repudiation viz., from 10.3.2010 till the date of payment. The compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of Rs. 1,000/- awarded by the Dist. Forum is confirmed. The appeal preferred by Op2 bank FA 234 of 2011 is dismissed with costs computed at Rs. 5,000/-. Time for compliance four weeks. 24) The appeal filed by the insurance company FA 886 of 2011 is allowed. Consequently the complaint against Opl insurance company is dismissed. However, no costs.” 9. Hence, the present Revision Petitions. 10. In his arguments, the learned Counsel for OP-2/SBI Bank asserted that the insurance company erroneously printed D. No.13/82 instead of D. No.13/241 in the address column of the policy. The claim was rejected on technical ground rather than merits. The surveyor affirmed the authenticity of the flood incident and confirmed by physical verification that the address was erroneous with respect to Door No. mentioned in the policy has lost its significance. The surveyor appointed by the Insurer for address verification, confirmed that there is damage of stock occurred in the name of the Complainant at D. No.13/241 and not at D. No.13/82. He admitted that the main reason for claim repudiation was the incorrect Door Number in the policy bond, and otherwise, the claim was genuine. The Counsel argued that the rejection of a genuine claim on technical grounds defeats the fundamental intent and objective of the Insurance Act and the Govt to provide financial assistance in such cases. Yet, the claim was rejected based on a flimsy technicality. The surveyor assessed the claim Rs.99,267/- on average basis. 11. The learned Counsel for OP-1 reiterated facts of the case and asserted that OP-2 provided the wrong address (D. No.13/82, Mandi Bazar, Kurnool instead of D. No.13/241 Mandi Bazar, Kurnool) while obtaining the policy. Being aware of the incorrect address, he did not take steps to correct it, justifying claim repudiation by the insurer. He supported the order of the State Commission. He contended that the Complainant acknowledged the wrong property number printed by the insurance company itself, absolving the bank of any negligence. The learned Counsel for OP-2 argued that the Complainant acknowledged the wrong property number printed by the OP-1. Thus, no negligence can be attributed to the bank (Respondent No.2). He contended that the Complainant, with full knowledge of the insurance policy's contents, did not take steps to correct the address after receiving the policy. Top of Form 12. I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned Counsels for both the Parties. 13. The central issue in the case is whether the Complainant is entitled for the claim of Rs.4 Lakhs as restricted under the Insurance Policy in question notwithstanding the difference in the address of the premises in the insurance policy stating D. No.13/241 instead of D. No.13/82. 14. The Complainant argued that the insurance company itself made the error in printing the wrong address in the insurance policy, whereas the insurer contended that the incorrect information was provided by OP-2. Admittedly, all parties acknowledge that the insurance policy was issued based on details about the premises provided by OP-2. It is also an established position that nothing exists named as D. No.13/82 in the name of the Complainant in the vicinity of the said address or anywhere else where the Complainant has any insurable interest. The surveyor undertook detailed investigation, assessed the loss, and confirmed the genuineness of the case including the location and correct address. It is also uncontested that no proposal form for the policy was filled and submitted by the Complainant. The details including the address were provided by OP-2 and, however, none of the parties took steps to rectify the error in the address mentioned in the insurance policy. OP-1 did not object to any of the documents submitted by the Complainant. It is also an uncontested position that, at no stage, the Complainant had misrepresented any fact whatsoever. 15. This is not the case where the Complainant had multiple godowns at different locations and some ambiguity crept into as regards the stocks of which godown are insured vis-à-vis the other. He has only one godown of which the address was erroneously recorded by the Insurer and the Bank. In the Agreement of Loan and Hypothecation executed between the Complainant and the Bank dated 20.09.2008 explicitly states the address as 13/241 Mandi Bazar, Kurnool. This was the actual address of the Complainant. It is also an undisputed that the Complainant had suffered loss in the said flood at Door No.13/241 at the same address. Therefore, repudiation of the claim by OP-1, well knowing that the same is based merely on an error in recording the address or a typographical error, that too provided by OP-2, is untenable. Top of Form Top of Form 16. In view of the foregoing discussions, the Revision Petitions Nos. 320, 321 & 322 of 2013 are Allowed and the order of the learned State Commission dated 16.10.2012 is modified as under: Order - The Opposite Party No.1/Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs.4,00,000 as restricted under the Insurance Policy along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation of the claim i.e. 10.03.2010 till realization, within a period of one month from the date of this order. In the event of delay beyond one month, the interest applicable for such extended period shall be @ 12% per annum.
17. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. 18. All pending application, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. | 
