The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of interpreting the terms of the insurance contract as understood between the parties, and the duty of the court to strictly construe the terms of the contract without altering its nature, as it may affect the interests of the parties adversely.

Judgment

A. K. MATHUR, J.

( 1 ) BOTH the appeals arise against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

( 2 ) ONE Civil Appeal No. 4366/1999 is filed by the Polymat India Pvt. Ltd. and the other Civil Appeal No. 6063/1999 is filed by the National insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. against the order passed by the National consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi on 27th May, 1999 in the Original Petition No. 204 of 1994.

( 3 ) SINCE both the appeals raise common question of law and arise out of the same order, they are disposed of by the common order.

( 4 ) BRIEF facts of the case are as under : that the Original Petition was filed by the complainant M/s. Polymat india Pvt. Ltd and Anr. as a consequence of its claim under 2 fire policies bearing No. 101600/3101669/0 in respect of Building machinery and accessories and furniture and other contents and the other bearing no. 101600/3101670/0 regarding stocks and used/burn lubricating oil and refined oil in its factory premises consequent upon a fire being repudiated by the insurance Company, Opposite Party No. 1. The insured Polymat India Pvt. Ltd. is a factory measuring 251 x 150 and is bounded by 7 high brick wall on south and Chain-link fencing on the North, East and West Sides. Inside the factory premises the Complainant had a shed measuring 101 x 41 constructed of brick wall with asbestos sheets louvers at upper and asbestos sheets roofing on tubular frame structure. Attached to the South side of the shed was a lean-to structure measuring about 85 x 25 and constructed of brick walls and roofing on tubular frame. The construction was divided into several rooms housing the office, quality control laboratory, workshop-cum-rest room and store room for tools and equipment. These rooms had their opening inside the shed. In the said factory a Dove-tail batch type acid and clay treatment process for refining the used/burnt lubricating oil was undertaken. The raw material for the process was the burnt and used lubricating oil which was received in barrels and stored in the open yard. Apart from that, oil was also brought in and unloaded into used oil pits. The finished product i. e. refined lubricating oil was either being loaded into oil tankers or being filled in drums. In the part of the plant which was in open the centrifugation, settling and decantation, dehydration, condensation of lighter volatile impurities, acid treatment and condensation of volatile matters were being conducted. The part of the operation which was carried on inside the shed were the less hazardous process like clay treatment and neutralization, filtration and centrifugation, oil blending etc. In that shed two Thermic Fluid Heaters, one oil fired boiler and one water softening plant were also installed. At the material time, all these plants and machinery and materials were covered by the two fire insurance policies. In the said policies the banker of the claimant was also one of the beneficiaries. The said two policies were of dated 19th and 20th March, 1992. It was alleged that in 1992 the bankers were changed by the complainant from Grindlays Bank, Chowringhee Branch, Calcutta to allahabad Bank, Camac Street Branch, Calcutta and all the fixed assets were mortgaged by the Complainant in favour of the West Bengal Financial corporation to secure the loans received by the Complainant No. 1. All the fixed assets, stocks and stocks-in-process of the Complainant remained insured with the New Indiaassurance Co. upto 19th/20th March, 1992. But after the change of the bankers from Grindlays Bank to Allahabad Bank the complainant also changed their insurer from the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to National Insurance Co. Ltd. It is also pointed out that the Development officer of the National Insurance Co. Ltd. one Mr. Sandip Guha brought two proposal forms for fire insurance on or about 17th March, 1992 and got those signed by the Complainant in blank. He also took with