IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI FIRST APPEAL NO. 550 OF 2023 (A gainst the order dated 26/10/2022 in C om plaint C ase N o.141/2015 of the Tam il N adu State C om m ission, C hennai)

W ITH IA /6645/2023 (Stay), IA/6646/2023 (C ondonation of delay), IA /6647/2023 (E xem ption for filing translation docum ents), IA/6648/2023 (E xem ption of file typed copies of docum ents), IA /8313/2024 (A m endm ent of cause title)

C anara Bank, Through Its B ranch M anager Fort Branch Salem 636991. .....A ppellant (s)

Versus

1. U nited India Insurance C o. Ltd.

Through its Branch M anager, A .K.M . Tow er, First Floor, 397-1, Junction M ain R oad, Salem , 636004.

2. M /s M ohanbabu Traders by its Partner, A.K.M . Tow er, First Floor, 397-1, Junction M ain R oad, Salem , 636991. R espondent(s)

BEFORE:

HON'BLE DR. INDER JIT SINGH, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, MEMBER For the A ppellant(s) M r. A nant G autam , A dvocate For the R espondent(s) M r. A ditya Kum ar, A dvocate for R-1 (V.C )

N one for R -2 Dated : 18.11.2025

ORDER

1.

N one appears for respondent no.2 (com plainant before the State C om m ission) despite service, w hich is recorded in order dated 10.10.2024 (dasti-

service). Further, the notice issued by the R egistry in pursuance to the order dated

06.06.2024 w as also served. H ence, R -2 is proceeded ex-parte on m erits.

2. H eard learned counsel representing the appellant Bank and respondent no.1 Insurance C om pany. In this case, the State C om m ission has allow ed the com plaint and the directions are against the appellant Bank only. There are no directions against the Insurance C om pany. The claim w as repudiated by the Insurance C om pany on the ground that the godow n w here the fire took place w as not covered under the insurance policy (page 347). The extract of the said letter is reproduced below :A “R e : F ife C la im N o . 1 1 /1 /1 2 o n 1 3 .1 1 .1 2 -P o lic y N o .

1 7 0 8 0 1 /1 1 /1 1 /1 1 /0 0 0 0 0 8 2 5 .

W e re fe r y o u r le tte r d a te d 2 9 .0 5 .2 0 1 3 a d d re s s e d to M s . C a n a ra B a n k , F o rt B ra n c h , S a le m 1 a n d c o p ie d to u s .

O n g o in g th ro u g h 'th e s u rv e y re p o rt a n d o th e r p a p e rs s u b m itte d b y y o u , w e o b s e rv e th e fo llo w in g .

■

T h e p o lic y h a s b e e n ta k e n b y M s . C a n a ra B a n k , F o rt B ra n c h , S a la m fo r th e lo a n b o rro w e r c o v e rin g th e s to c k o f T u rm e ric a n d o th e r n a tu re o f g o o d s k e p t in th e g o d o w n w h ic h is s itu a te d a t d o o r N o . 4 6 /1 6 9 L e ig h B a z a a r, S a le m 6 3 6 0 0 9 . T h is is a ls o c o n firm s fro m th e C la im fo rm w h ic h is d u ly c o m p le te d a n d s ig n e d b y y o u .

B u t th e fire o c c u rs in th e g o d o w n s itu a te d a t d o o r N o . 2 2 9 S u ra m a n g a la m M a in R o a d , P a lla p a tti, S a le m 6 3 6 0 0 9 w h ic h is c o n firm e d b y .th e s u rv e y o r. In th e F IR a ls o y o u h a v e s ta te d th e a d d re s s o f g o d o w n a t 2 2 9 S u ra m a n a g a la m R o a d , P a lla p a tty S a le m 9 . T h e re n ta l, a g re e m e n t m a d a b y y o u a ls o re v e a ls th e a d d re s s o f 2 2 9 S u ra m a n g a la m R o a d , S a le m 9 .

X\s th e g o d o w n s itu a te d in th e a d d re s s 2 2 9 S u ra m a n g a la m R o a d , P a lla p a tti, S a le m is n o t c o v e re d b y th e in s u ra n c e , w e re g re t to in fo rm y o u th a t w e a re n o t lia b le to in d e m n ify th e lo s s .”

3. The Bank w as ex-parte before the S tate C om m ission. It is not in dispute that the Bank took the insurance policy only for one address of R -2 (com plainant) i.e. Leigh B azaar Salem . N o policy w as taken for the godow n of the com plainant at S uram angalam . It is the case of the appellant Bank that even as per the loan enhancem ent letter dated 16.03.2010 (page 56), the only address on the record of the Bank w as Leigh B azaar Salem , the com plainan