Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President— In this complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 8,19,245/- from the opposite parties i.e. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., National Insurance Co. Ltd. and New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

2. It is the case of the complainant that he had obtained insurance coverage from the opposite parties for the cotton seeds stored and stocked in its godowns. During the currency of the insurance coverage, on 29.4.88 when the buyers inspected the stock in one of the godowns it was found that 2,600 Qtls. of cotton seeds worth Rs. 10,01,000/- was damaged and the buyers refused to purchase the same.

3. The complainant immediately thereafter made claim with the opposite parties; opposite party Nos. 1, 2, and 3 had shouldered and shared the risk at 80%, 10% and 10% respectively. While the opposite parties were enquiring into the matter on the claim of the complainant, the complainant with the permission of the opposite parties sold the said damaged cotton seeds and realised by such a sale a sum of Rs. 3,78,000/-, in consequence of which the complainant suffered a loss of a sum of Rs. 6,23,000/- to which the opposite parties were liable to pay. The opposite parties though surveyed the said damaged goods but repudiated the claim stating that the damage caused to the goods was not the risk covered. The complainant thereafter filed the complaint seeking the relief, referred above.

4. The opposite parties filed their version and admitted the fact that the goods i.e., cotton seeds, was insured with them by the complainant. The opposite parties also admitted that the damage caused to the cotton seeds was during the currency of the policies and for which the complainant had made the claim. The opposite parties also admitted that they had permitted the complainant to sell the said damaged cotton seeds. As the cause for the damage was not due to fermentation, natural heating or spontaneous combustion, so the claim of the complainant was repudiated. The damage to the cotton seeds was due to storage fungus and it was nothing to do with fermentation, natural heating of spontaneous combustion.

5. The opposite parties on the basis of these averments sought the complaint to be dismissed.

6. During enquiry the complainant filed the affidavit of its partner and got Exs. C1 to C11 marked in evidence. The opposite parties filed the affidavit of its Manager and got Exs. R1 to R4 marked in evidence.

7. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the material on record.

8. It is not disputed that the cotton seeds stored in one of the godowns of the complainant was damaged during the currency of the Insurance Policies.

9. It is the case of the complainant that he was entitled to get compensation from the opposite parties under “Spontaneous Combustion” clause, the risk covered under the policy.

10. Ex. C2 is the policy. The said risk reads as under :

“Spontaneous Combustion” Clause

Attached to and forming part of policy/ endorsement No. F/955/87

“In consideration of the payment by the Insured to the Company of an additional premium of Rs. the Company agrees notwithstanding what is stated in the printed conditions of this policy to the contrary that the insurnace under (the Main item of) this policy shall extend to include loss or damage by fire only of or to the property insured caused by its own fermentation, natural heating or spontaneous combustion.”

11. It is clear from this that in case the property gets damaged by fire or by its own fermentation, nutural heating or spontaneous combustion, the Insurance Company becomes liable to reimburse the loss sustained by the complainant.

12. The complainant in his complaint has in this regard at para 6, averred thus :

“6. The complainant submits that on 29.4.88 when the buyers inspected the stock alongwith the staff of the complainant in one of the godowns it was found that 26