The validity of an insurance claim depends on adherence to policy conditions, including prompt notification of incidents and proper disclosure of property use.

1. Under challenge in this Revision Petition No. 3825 of 2013 is the impugned order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, Kolkata ('State Commission', hereafter) in FA / 50/2012 dated 12.7.2013. Vide this order, the State Commission had disposed off the appeal by modifying the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jalpaiguri ('District Forum', hereafter) in CC / 2011/25 dated 28.11.2011. Whereas the District Forum had allowed the consumer complaint, directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,000 (Rs. 7 Lakh) with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing till realization, and Rs.25,000 compensation, and Rs.1,000 towards costs, the State Commission modified this order and directed the respondent / OP to pay a sum of Rs.2,91,666.66 (Rs. Two lakh ninety one thousand six hundred sixty six and sixty six paise only) with interest at 6% p.a., leaving the rest of the order unchanged. It is this order of the State Commission that is now under challenge in this revision petition.

2. It is the case of the petitioner / complainant (complainant hereafter) that he had insured his two - storey house with the respondent / OP - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. (OP hereafter) for a sum insured of Rs.24,00,000 (Rs.24 Lakh), from 17.4.2007 to 16.4.2012, vide standard fire special peril policy No. OG - 8-2404-4025-00000001. On the night of 24/25.10.2010, the front portion of the house was totally gutted in a fire. Upon intimation by his wife, who had also taken an insurance policy for her automobile spare parts being carried out in the same building, OP deputed an investigator / surveyor. On 19.1.2011, the complainant formally informed the OP and filed a claim for loss suffered to the building due to the fire. The OP, however, repudiated the claim on the ground that it had been intimated after a delay of over 15 days, and also on the ground that a portion of the building was being used for business, a fact not disclosed in the proposal form. The contention of the OP was that the building was being used illegally for commercial purpose and that therefore the complainant became a non - consumer under the Consumer Protection Act , 1986, and therefore, the claim became non - payable for suppression of material facts. The complainant filed a consumer complaint with the District Forum which, as noted earlier, was allowed. On appeal, the State Commission modified the order reducing the amount payable, from Rs.7 lakh to Rs.2,91,666.66. Hence, this revision petition.

3. This was heard on 26.2.2020. Counsel for the complainant and proxy Counsel for the respondent, upon instruction, agreed that final order may be passed based on written submissions already made.

4. Admitted facts are that the complainant had taken out an insurance policy for his building for five years and that a fire took place on the night 24/25.10.10 in which the front portion of the house was totally gutted. His wife had a business of automobile spare parts which was being conducted from the first floor of the same building. Intimation to the Insurance Company was given by his wife who had also insured her business separately with them. The point to note however is that both the insurance policies related to the same building. Whereas the building had been insured for Rs.7 lakh, wife of the business had been insured separately for Rs.15 lakh.

5. The District Forum reasoned that there was no specific clause in the insurance policy which stated that no portion of the said insured house could be used for business purpose. As such, it found no merit in the argument of the OP that the house was being used for commercial purpose, and that this violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Fu