Mr. Justice S.K. Dubey, President—New India Assurance Company Ltd. aggrieved of the order dated 16th September, 1997 passed in Case No. 9/97 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoshangabad (for short the ‘District Forum’) has filed this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act’).

2. The facts giving rise to this appeal are thus that the complainant carries on business of sale of goods and medicine items at Jawahar Market, Itarsi in the name and style as “M/s. Kohli General Store”. In Jawahar Market he had two shops, shop No. 49 and shop No. 50. In between the shops there is a brick wall. The two shops had two separate shutters. The actual sales are organised in shop No. 49 from the counter existing in the shop while shop No. 50 is used as godown to keep the stocks only. The appellant took a Shopkeepers’ Insurance No. 4845010302345 covering the fire and perils, burglary and house breaking money and baggage insurance commencing from to 16.2.1993 which was issued after acceptance proposal form-cum-schedule attached to part of the policy. In the column of recitals insured description against the name of proposer in full and full Business (Shop) address is given as “Central Bank of India, Itarsi A/c Kohli General Store, Jawahar Market, Itarsi”. In the body of the policy in Section I which relates to fire and allied perils of which category A relates to building was not covered with insurance while Category B relates to contents (excluding money/valuables) the insurance was of, (1) furniture, fixture, fittings of value Rs. 25,000/- and (2) Stock in trade consisting of general goods and medicine items was insured to the extent of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Because of the fire the stock was burnt on 11.2.1993 at about 6.00 a.m. The claim was lodged with the Insurance Company. On this, preliminary survey was made by Shri Bhimji Bhai Patel on 11.2.1993 at 9.00 a.m. The survey report is dated 12.2.1993 (Ex. P/3). The final survey was made by Shri Chandra Mohan. The survey report is dated 14.5.1993. The burnt stock was of Rs. 82,364.10 paise while saved stock was of Rs. 50,302.35 paise in both the shops. The total value of the stock was Rs. 1,32,666.45 paise out of which burnt stock was within the sum insured of Rs. 1,25,000/-. In the report a special note was given that the sales were organised by shop No. 49 while shop No. 50 was used to keep stock only. Therefore, as per existing Shopkeeper’s Insurance Policy, the loss to the stock burnt in godown does not come under the scope of the policy hence, it is a no claim case. On this report the appellant repudiated the claim. Therefore, insured filed the complaint under Section 12 of the Act. The defence version was in line with the Surveyor’s report that is risk of stock kept in godown i.e. shop No. 50 was not covered.

3. The District Forum after recording of evidence and after considering the material on record held that the shop where the contents are kept was not specified in the insurance policy, the stock in trade consisting of Rs. 1,25,000/- of general goods and medicine items was insured, the shop No. 50 was in possession of the insured since last 8 years where he used to keep the stock for carrying on its business. In the circumstances the repudiation of the claim was without application of mind and arbitrary. Therefore, order for payment of Rs. 82,400/- the loss as assessed by the Surveyor with its interest from 1.1.1994 @ 12% p.a. and costs of Rs. 300/-.

We have heard Mr. S.K. Menon, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.M. Bhatt, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the record.

4. The only question for our consideration is whether the stock kept in shop No. 50 for sale by the sinsured was covered by the Shopkeepers’ Insurance Policy. From the facts stated above, it would be evident that in recitals in the heading of the Full Business (Shop) Address, no shop has been specified. The address given is “Central Bank of India