K.S. Gupta, Presiding Member—In this revision filed with a delay of 107 days, challenge is to the order dated 3.9.2007 of M.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal allowing appeal against the order dated 3.7.2006 of a District Forum with direction to the petitioner-Insurance Co. to pay amount of Rs. 2,94,877/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of repudiation i.e. 12.6.2003 till payment, to the respondent. The District Forum had dismissed the complaint.

2. Respondent/complainant had obtained policy covering the period of fire for the period from 29.4.2002 to 28.4.2003 of a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- in respect of stock of all types of T.V. sets and coolers from the petitioner-Insurance Co. Due to fire in the premises on 7.5.2002, T.V. sets and coolers kept there were burnt. Insurance Co. was intimated of the occurrence. By the letter dated 3.11.2004, the Insurance Co. repudiated the claim on the ground that the place where the fire broke out was not a shop but godown and claim was thus not payable under the policy. Complaint filed thereafter by the respondent claiming certain reliefs was contested by the petitioner-Insurance Co. mainly on the ground on which claim was repudiated by the letter dated 3.11.2004.

3. Submission advanced by Shri Atul Nanda, Adv. for the petitioner is that the policy taken by the respondent was a shopkeeper’s policy. The place where the fire took place was a godown. So, the claim was not payable and the decision to repudiate claim was taken after due application of mind by the Insurance Co. It is not in dispute that instead of issuing a policy, the proposal itself after making endorsement was treated to be proposal-cum-insurance by the Insurance Co. Pursuant to the order dated 9.4.2008, petitioner Insurance Co. has filed the carbon copy of proposal-cum-insurance. This would show that the stock of T.V. sets kept at 26, Malanpur Ind. Area, Malanpur was insured. It was, therefore, immaterial whether the said premises was used as a godown or shop. In its report dated 25.2.2003, Ram Mohan Gupta, Surveyor has observed that in this case shopkeeper’s policy was not a proper policy for covering the stock. Amount of Rs. 2,94,877/- as awarded by the State Commission is as per the said survey report. Repudiation of claim made by the Insurance Co. was, thus, totally unjustified. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order of State Commission calling for interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision is therefore, dismissed.

Revision petition dismissed.

*******