ORDER

PER BHARATKUMAR PANDYA. MEMBER

1. This revision petition filed by the OP-insurance company is against the order of the Gujarat State Commission dated 27.10.2021 in appeal no. 122 of 2019, whereby State Commission partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner, modified the order of the District Forum by reducing the compensation amount and directed the insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- to the respondent-complainant.

2. Brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner-insurance company, are that the respondent, proprietor of a storage/transport company, purchased Standard Fire and Special Peril (SFSP) policy from them for Sum Assured (SA) of Rs.10 lakhs for the period from 27.07.2015 to 26.07.2016. The said policy covered the risk of fire, inundation etc held by the respondent in its godown in trust. There was heavy rainfall on 27.07.2015 i.e. the very 1st day of insurance, and it continued for 4 to 5 days due to which the goods stored at the godown of the respondent got damaged. Respondent reported the said damage to the petitioner through a letter dated 30.07.2015 and claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.9 lakhs. Petitioner appointed a surveyor Mr. Rajendra S. Joshi, who assessed the loss/damage and prepared a Survey Report. As per the said survey report, though, the total amount of damaged goods stood at Rs.5,02,522/-, but the indemnifiable claim under the said policy of the respondent could only be a sum of Rs.1,18,300/- as per the terms and conditions of the said policy. The same was informed to the respondent, and the payment was offered with a request to furnish the NOC from the third parties whose goods were damaged, through an email dated 04.02.2016 as under, which is also reproduced in the District Forum’s order:

OwS*.

*** j

oajKMMHUt

i. K>ra«..«T.MMMADKI

IS)

Loss, -•R. iMot of tHe made the biir are directly sojd b shree' iT* 9°OCJs s^Ovv" i" Traders through Rajasthan Tran Textiles to Zacfcar bHC in such — * - not unload the goods shown in the bm at th " tO »s not accepted. " at-the godown. So, the biff

2) If the bill vide Serial No.6 is seen, the advocate A. /vj.Achhava has made submission that, the said goods shown in the bfl, are directly soM by Shree Rarr, Textiles to 2anlar thrO ° 9h Transport, insured's name is not >n e bill. In such circumstances, no question arises to no arises — iX:x 9 tT shown f in n t th h e e b b i i l " l a at t t c h h e e 9od ° w "- s °-

3) If the bifl vide Serial No. 12 is seen, the goods are directly sold by Sadhna Print to Jyoti Trading Company through Rajasthan Transport, whereby the Insured's name is also not there in the bill. In such circumstances, no question arises to unload the goods at the godown. Moreover, this is Old Stock. So, the bill Is not accepted. Now, considering the submission made by the advocate for the insurance company and t t a a k k i i n n g g the above bills produced vide Serial No. 5, 6, 12 i i n n view. Delivery at Shivkrupa Transport is mentioned. I I n n such circumstances, upon taking the vouchers related to the bills in view, it cannot be concluded tha