Mr. Justice M.K. Basu, President—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.2.2002 passed by the North 24 Pgs. District Consumer Forum in DFC No. 164/2001 under which the Forum dismissed the complaint on contest without cost against the O.P. Nos. 4 and 5 and ex parte without cost against O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 i.e.,. The Oriental Insurance Co. and its Managers. Being aggrieved thereby the complainant has preferred this appeal challenging the order as erroneous, illegal and unsustainable.

2. The relevant facts of the complainant’s case were that he took a policy from the O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 with regard to his construction materials pertaining to the work of storage and erection in connection with drawing electrical overhead line at Kuthi Para (Gobordanga) from the West Bengal State Electricity Board (O.P. Nos. 4 and 5). As per the contract of insurance which covered storage cum erection he lodged a claim before the Insurance Company (O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3) when his materials kept in a godown at Haichel Nagar were stolen away. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that it was not covered under the terms of the Policy which was in respect of storage cum erection at the site and not at godown. Being dissatisfied with such a contention of the Insurance Company the complainant lodged the complaint before the Forum which after hearing the complainant and perusing the materials on record came to the conclusion that the Policy was in respect of storage cum erection of the materials in question at the site and not in a godown. The Forum also found that the policy covered only materials which were damaged due to any reason but not those which were lost due to theft or robbery. With this reasoning the Forum found that the complaint had no merit and dismissed it as mentioned above.

3. On hearing Mr. Chatterjee, the learned Counsel for the appellant and perusing the materials on record we are of the considered view that the judgment of the Forum appears to be perfectly all right. The policy is clearly in respect of material damage which certainly is not the same thing as theft. But what is more important, the policy applies to storage-cum-erection at the construction site. This is palpable from the contents and clauses of the Insurance Policy. Thus in the policy under the heading “Material Damage” four items are described namely, plant and Equipment to be erected and total erection cost comprising Erection Cost and Material at Site. The last item “Material at Site” is a clear index of the above conclusion. This is strengthened by the sentence put at the bottom of this policy agreement (Page 16 of the Memo of Appeal) written in hand as “Property Insured at the Construction Site”. After this there is no ambiguity and it is crystal clear that the insurance was to cover only the materials lying at the site and not at the godown. Mr. Chatterjee strenuously argued to bring home his point that the “Storage” occurring in the expression “Storage-cum-Erection Insurance” should be taken to mean that the policy was in respect of property lying in the godown because “storage” means “state of being stored in a godown”. But this is far from correct. The word “storage” being used by the side of the word “erection” is to be taken to signify storage of articles at the site and this has been sought to be made all the more clear by writing the above mentioned line on the policy at its bottom.

4. Mr. Chatterjee has referred to a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1979 Supreme Court 621, to draw our attention to the mandate given in its Head Note (C) to the effect that “the true principle of promissory estoppel seems to be that where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other a clear and unequivocal promise which is intended to create legal relations or effect a legal relationship to arise in the future knowing or intending that it would be acted upon by the other party to whom the promise is made