DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER 1. This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the order dated 11.11.2014 of the State Commission in complaint no. 16 of 2012, whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant company’) and the learned counsel for the respondent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurance company’) and perused the record including the State Commission’s impugned order dated 11.11.2014 and the memorandum of appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 29.11.2010 the complainant company, a manufacturer of sugar and running a factory, obtained a fire declaration insurance policy for the sugar stock / goods in the godown of the factory for the sum insured of Rs. 54 crore. The policy was valid for the period from 01.12.2010 to 30.11.2011. It is alleged that before issuing the policy, the officer of the insurance company inspected the factory of the complainant company and after inspection, the policy was issued. It is further alleged that during the subsistence of the insurance policy, on 01.06.2011 at about 9.00 p.m. there was heavy stormy rain, due to which tin shed of the godown flew away and 5000 quintals of sugar stock of M-30 and 10000 quintal of sugar of S-30 was damaged and the complainant company suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.34,75,750/-. The complainant company immediately informed about the said loss to the insurance company on 02.06.2011. On 02.06.2011, the surveyor and loss assessor visited the factory’s godown and asked the complainant company to submit certain documents and the report of the Metrology Department. The complainant company submitted all the required documents as well as report issued by Tehsildar, Talathi and panchas conducted by the Tahsildar. Again on 06.07.2011, the insurance company issued letter and again asked the complainant to submit certain documents. On 01.08.2011 the surveyor visited the factory godown and asked the complainant to call quotation for sale of damaged sugar stock. Thereafter on 02.08.2011 the complainant submitted claim form with insurance company. On 29.09.2011 the surveyor again asked for some documents and the same were supplied to the surveyor on 12.11.2011. On 27.01.2012, the insurance company repudiated the claim on the following grounds: 1. That, the reported loss pertains to the alleged stock stored in temporary godown No. 2, which was constructed subsequent to the obtaining the Insurance Policy. As such the subject godown was not in existence to extend the insurance cover in respect of the stock stored therein. 2. That, as required under general condition no. 3 of the Insurance contract no endorsement was obtained upon the policy by paying additional premium required regarding aforesaid change, which had increased the risk of loss or damage by insured perils therefore the insurance ceases to attach as regards to the property affected. 3. That, there is no evidence regarding the rain followed by storm as alleged. Therefore, the loss if any suffered by you does not fall within the Insured Peril 4. That, the damaged stock was sold out without intimation or approval of the Insurer, hence no reimbursement in respect of the same can be made. 4. Aggrieved by the repudiation by the insurance company, the complainant company filed a complaint before the State Commission. 5. The complaint was contested by the insurance company by filing written statement before the State Commission stating that the complainant company is not a consumer within the meaning of section 2(1)(d) of the Act as the complainant company is engaged in commercial activities and therefore, the transaction is commercial and the dispute is not a consumer dispute. It was also alleged that the complaint involves complicated questions of fact and law and require extensive evidence, examination of voluminous record, therefore, the complaint cannot be decided by this Commission in summary proceedings. It was also alleged that the cause of loss i.e. rain water was not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. It is further alleged that the repudiation of the claim is based on the findings of the surveyor and the surveyor’s report is a sacrosanct one and cannot be brushed aside. 6. The State Commission vide impugned Order dated 11.11.2014 dismissed the complaint. 7. Aggrieved by the said Order of the State Commission, the complainant company filed the instant appeal before this Commission. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant company has argued that the temporary godown no. 2 was insured at the time of obtaining the policy and is an admitted fact by the insurer. In its support, he placed reliance on the policy document, which states under sub heading 2. “stock” “sugar stock in godowns and temporary godowns”. He further argued that the general condition no. 3 of the insurance policy does not attract any payment of additional premium. He pointed out the panchnama conducted by Talathi clearly states that strong winds and rain lasted for an hour and from the statement of Tehsildar, it is evident that there was rain followed by storm. As regards the sale of the damaged sugar, he has argued that the same was sold as per the direction of the insurance company and that it was done after inviting a tender. 9. The learned counsel for the insurance company contended that the temporary godown which contained the affected sugar bags was not in existence at the time of taking insurance policy on 01.12.2010 and was constructed later in January 2011 and hence not covered in the policy. To support this contention, a letter dated 04.01.2011 addressed to Swan Tarpaulins, has been enclosed, which is a work order for temporary tarpaulin shed from the appellant. It is for erection of water proof / leak proof tarpaulin sheds of certain specified measurement. Further, he contended that despite being asked, the insured had not submitted any proof that the peril as provided in the policy had actually taken place on 01.06.2010 and also that the insured had disposed of the salvage without informing the surveyor even though he was told to associate Surveyor in the process much in advance. He also relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the cases of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Roshan Lal Oil Mills Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 19 and Sikka Papers Ltd. vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2009) 7 SCC 777 to highlight that the report of the surveyor is an important document and the courts will have to show deference to the report of the surveyor appointed in terms of Section 64UM(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938. 10. As regards the point of endorsement on the policy document, learned counsel for the insurance company has submitted that there is no endorsement on the policy document. In support, he placed emphasis on condition no. 3 of the policy which states as below: “The insurance ceases to attach as regards the property affected unless the insured, before the occurrence of any loss or damage, obtains the sanction of the company signified by endorsement upon the policy by or on behalf of the company. If the trade or manufacture carried on be altered, or if the nature of the occupation of or other circumstances affecting the building insured or containing the insured property be changed in such a way as to increase the risk of loss or damage by insured perils.” 11. The primary question before this Commission is whether the repudiation of the claim is correct or not. 12. It is seen that although the insurance policy does mention temporary godown but the letter dated 04.01.2011 addressed to Swan Tarpaulins was issued after the date of the issuance of the insurance policy and the complainant has not been able to prove that the same was already constructed prior to the date on which the insurance policy was issued. As regards happening of the storm, it is seen that the surveyor called upon the complainant to produce any report from the meteorological department or news reporting or any other evidence to prove that there was storm in the area of sugar factory on that date. However, the complainant company only relied on the panchnama prepared by the revenue authority which says that wind was flowing and it was followed by rain but no evidence has been brought to prove that there was storm in the area on 01.06.2010 either before the State Commission or before this Commission. 13. The surveyor in his report has categorically stated that “the temporary godown No. 2 did not exist at the time of obtaining the insurance. It was constructed in January 2011 vide work order Ref. No. GIACL/WO/45/2010-11/EXTENSION dt. 04.01.2011 issued to M/s Swan Tarpaulins, Mumbai. The insured had constructed a pacca godown but it was collapsed on 16.11.2011 by 5-34 p.m. while in completion stage. It necessitated the insured to urgently construct the temporary godown No. 2. As per the principle of the insurance, the subject matter should exist at the time of obtaining the insurance policy i.e. 01.12.2010 and at the time of loss i.e. on 01.06.2011. The temporary godown No. 2 in which the loss has taken place did not exist on 01.12.2010”. In the present case, no endorsement was ever obtained by the insured as regards the godown no. 2. It has also been observed by the surveyor that there was no other loss in the entire Shevgaon taluka or Najik Babulgaon village where the insured premises is situated on that particular date on account of any storm. 14. So far as the point of sale of salvage sugar is concerned, it is seen that through letter dated 29.09.2011, the surveyor had stated that “at the time of visit on 01.08.2011 you were requested to involve us in the process of sale of salvage but now it is learnt that the salvage sugar had been sold without intimating the insurance company”. The insured in their letter dated 12.11.2011 supplied the details of the sale of the salvage sugar and it is seen that the invoices are dated 06.08.2011 to 19.08.2011. It is quite clear that the salvage sugar was sold by the insured without involving the surveyor as requested by the insurance company. 15. In view of the above, the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company is correct and we find no illegality or infirmity in the Order dated 11.11.2014 of the State Commission warranting our interference. 16. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed. | 
