IMPORTANT POINT
Word “godown” does not exclude open godown.

Suresh Chandra, Member—Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19.03.2009 passed by the State Commission, OP No. 1, i.e. the National Insurance Company Ltd., has filed the present appeal no. 216 of 2009 impugning the same. The Complainant i.e. M/s Hari Om Marketing, Ahmedabad has also filed a cross appeal no. 431 of 2009 against OP No. 1 as well as OP No. 2 i.e. the UCO Bank, Ahmedabad. For the sake of convenience, the parties in this case are being referred to by their nomenclature in FA No. 216 of 2009 except OP No. 2 – Bank, which is referred to as OP No. 2. By its impugned order passed in complaint No. 6 of 2005 filed by the Respondent/ Complainant, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gujarat State, Ahmedabad (in short the ‘State Commission’) has directed as under:

“Complaint is partly allowed.

Opponent No.1 shall pay Rs.5,13,412/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of repudiation letter and also pay Rs.5000/- towards cost, mental agony etc., to the complainant. Complaint against opponent No. 2 is dismissed”.

2. The Respondent who is a proprietor of a partnership concern namely Hari Om Marketing with its head office at C/1/284 GIDC, Naroda, Ahmedabad, is a dealer trading in wheat, wheat products, maida, cattle feeds etc. He secured financial assistance from OP 2 Bank through cash credit facility to the tune of Rs.65 lakh around July 2002 under Account No. CC 82489. The said cash credit facility was sanctioned by the OP Bank and was fully secured by way of hypothecation of goods lying in the godown as well as at the Registered office of the Respondent. As per the policy of the OP Bank, insurance cover was obtained on behalf of the Respondent firm from the Appellant Insurance Company and all formalities were completed duly by the OP Bank and premium was paid to the Appellant Insurance Company. The godown of the Respondent was situated at GIDC, Naroda, Ahemdabad, but later on the Respondent drew the attention of the OP Bank that the Respondent firm was also storing its hypothecated goods in the godown situated at Neelkanth godown at Gandhidham. In view of this OP 2 Bank informed the Appellant Insurance Company (OP No.1) about it and an endorsement to this effect was got incorporated in the insurance policy from the Appellant Insurance Company vide endorsement dated 27.05.2004, the policy period being from 02.04.2004 to midnight of 01.04.2005. The Respondent firm had stocks in the godown at Gandhidham for about Rs.37,25,000/-. The fire in question took place on 03.06.2004 and the goods lying at the godown at Gandhidham got damaged badly and turned into ash. The Insurance Company was accordingly informed about the incident of fire and the loss caused on account of this. The claim was registered by FAX message dated 09.06.2004 and the Respondent also filed a police complaint at the Gandhidham Police Station. The Respondent firm made a claim with the Appellant Insurance Company for Rs.45 lakh. The Appellant Insurance Company appointed M/s Kirj Consultants to whom necessary information and papers were furnished in regard to the incident of fire and the claim. Later on M/s G P Dave and Sons, Marine Technologist, Fire Marine, Engineering Assessors were appointed by the Appellant Insurance Company to investigate and submit the report for the loss caused to the Respondent. After scrutinizing the papers furnished, Respondent carried out laboratory testing of the damaged wheat, a report of salvage was sent by the investigators to M/s Kirj Consultants vide letter dated 06.10.2004. In spite of furnishing what ever information was called for by the surveyor and the loss assessors, the Appellant Insurance Company came to the conclusion vide letter date 24.12.2004 that claim lodged by the Respondent firm cannot be entertained for the reasons that the damage has occurred in open compound while risk under the policy is of closed godown and also there is no coverage for the spontaneous combustion un