B.K. Taimni, Member—Appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent/complainant had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant and second respondent.

2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the first respondent M/s. Imperial Gift Houses had a valid policy obtained from the Appellant covering the risk of ‘Furniture’ as well as ‘Electronic goods’ lying at their premises. On account of heavy rainfall, the roof of the building collapsed causing damage to the goods lying therein on the night of August 10 and 11, 1995. Appellants were informed who appointed a surveyor who assessed the loss at Rs. l,50,721/-. Since this amount was not being paid, a complaint was filed before the State Commission praying for grant of Rs. 5,50,000/- along with interest @18% p.a. and Rs. 2,500/- towards rent for storing the salvage and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards business loss. It was the case of the Appellant, before the State Commission that the terms of the Policy did not cover the risk on account of which the loss happened. It is admitted position that as per terms of the policy, the following risks were covered:—

“The company will