KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO.131/07 JUDGMENT DATED 22.4.2010 PRESENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT SRI.M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER Baiju Lal S/0 balakrishnan, Proprietor of Kairali Rubber Traders, Eranoor Panaveli, Kottarakkara Taluk, -- APPELLANT Kollam District. (By Adv.B.Suraj & Ors.) Vs. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. 2nd Floor, KasturbaBuilding, -- RESPONDENT Pulamon P.O, Kottarakkara Taluk, Kollam District. (By Adv.Sreevaraham G.Satjeesh) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU,PRESIDENT The appellant is the complainant in CC.420/05 in the file of CDRF, Kollam. The complaint filed stands dismissed. 2. It is the case of the complainant that the premises owned by him wherein stock of raw rubber was kept got destroyed in fire on 21.1.04. The premises were insured under the Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy with the opposite party. According to him in the fire 5,000 kg. rubber sheets were destroyed. According to him there was a loss of 30 lakhs. The opposite party repudiated the claim on the ground that the policy covered only the stock of rubber kept in the godown. 3. In the version filed, it is contended that the coverage is only with respect to the building No.VP XV1 238 used as godown for storing raw rubber sheets. It is pointed out that the surveyor has noted that the incident occurred not in the godown meant for stocking of raw rubber sheets but the building used as smoke house exclusively for processing rubber sheets. It is alleged that the godown was converted as smoke house against the policy conditions. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, Exts P1 to P4 and D1 to D7. 5. We find that it is seen from EXt.D3 final survey report which is relied on the opposite parties that the actual godown which is the size of 25 to 28 ft. is not at all covered with walls on the sides. But is having only a mesh protection and the roof with GI sheet in pillars. He has noted that the godown is not at all insured but the smoke house is insured as godown. The appellant has relied on Ext.D6 letter of the Development Officer of the opposite party wherein it is mentioned that at the time of accepting the policy he had explained that the coverage is only for the stock which is kept in the building used as godown only, and not for the stock kept in the smoke house which is in the processing area. It is also stated that he explained to the insured that the stock in the smoke house can be covered with a separate policy only for a higher rate of premium for which the insured did not agree. 6. We find that the particular Development Officer was not examined. The survey report would show that what has been insured is the buildings wherein the smoke house is also situated. In his own words it is the smoke house that is insured as the godown. It is not disputed that there is only one building which is mentioned in the policy. There is no case that the smoke house cannot be insured but can be insured with a higher premium. In the instant case, the premium paid is Rs.7500/-, and what would have been the premium of the smoke house is not evident. 7. The opposite party has also produced the conditions of policy which we find is a separate document wherein it is mentioned that the coverage would not extend in case of fire while undergoing any heating or drying process. The counsel for the appellant has stressed that Ext.D5, the extract of the G.D. of the Police would show that the incident happened while drying the rubber sheets. It is also seen that the fire has taken place in the building situated adjoining the godown. It is also seen from the copy of the Insurance policy produced by the respondents that it is the particular building that has been insured. It is described as a class construction. The same cannot be the shed like construction which is used as godown. There is no word of godown in Ext.P2 policy. The contention of the appellant that the smoke house was subsequently added to the building or a part of the building was converted as a smoke house is not supported by any objective evidence. In the circumstances, we find that the grounds mentioned for the repudiation of the claim are without merits. Although, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.30 lakhs the surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs.1,61,437/- excluding policy excess of Rs.10,000/- and salvage value of Rs.32,100/-. The sum insured is Rs.30 lakh The complainant has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he has sustained a loss of Rs.30 lakhs. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,61,437/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of complaint. The amount is to be paid within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant would be entitled for interest at 12% from the date of this order. JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU -- PRESIDENT M.K.ABDULLA SONA -- MEMBER | 
