ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Presiding Member
1. Appellant was the complainant before the State Commission, where she had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondent Insurance Company.
2. Very briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant purchased a paper copier with accessories, after obtaining a loan from Bank of India and as per terms of the ‘loan’ the paper copier was got insured with the second respondent. First policy had been taken from Jan. 1990 to Jan. 1991 and second policy was taken from 30 Jan. 1991 to 29.1.1992. This photocopier was stolen from the shop of the complainant located in Sessions Court compound at Baramati in April, 1991. When the claim was preferred with the second respondent, it was repudiated on the ground that the claim is not covered by the terms of the policy for the simple reason that in terms of the policy issued for the valid period, the copier was insured while in ‘Tehshil Kachaheri Baramati’, whereas admittedly the loss of the copier occurred at ‘Sessions-Courts compound at Baramati’ which are two different locations. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and after going through the two judgments of this Commission, namely, I (1992) CPJ 232 (NC), The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Annpurna Krishi Kendra, FA No. 171/1991 decided on 23.3.1992 and II (1995) CPJ 135 (NC), S. Rathinavelu v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. FA No. 119 of 1993 decided on 25.4.1995, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us.
3. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. There is no disputing the fact that as per the policy document, it was a ‘Shop-Keepers Insurance Policy’ and the place had been given as Tehshil Kachehari, Baramati. Section 1 of the ‘Shop-keepers Insurance Policy Clause’ reads as under:
The company will indemnify the insured in respect of loss of or damage to the building/contents whilst contained in the insured premises…
(Emphasis supplied)
4. One does not need any great research to conclude that what is covered are the contents contained in the ‘insured premises’; in this case as per the policy document, it was ‘Tehsil Kachehari, Baramati’. It is the case of the appellant/complainant that they had informed the change of location to the respondent but if they (the insurers) do not bring about the necessary changes in the policy, the appellant/ complainant cannot be held responsible. We drew the attention of the learned Counsel for the appellant to para 11 (ii) of the complaint which reads as under:
The intimation about change of address was already communicated to the respondent No. 2 sometime in August 1990. However, at the instance of respondent No. 1 it was once again sent on 20.1.1991.
5. A plain reading of this para will show that the relocation from Tehshil Kachehari, Baramati to Session’s Court premises had taken place much earlier, i.e., during the life of the earlier policy of which alleged intimation was made in August, 1990 but no proof of this has been produced before State Commission or before us; for the second time the change in location was intimated on 20.1.1991. There is no dispute that the policy was issued much earlier then the date of loss of the photocopier and it is also not in dispute that complainant had changed her place of business from ‘Tehshil’ to ‘Session Court’ in August, 1990. Firstly, we are unable to understand as to why she did not protest on receipt of the policy valid for the period from 30.1.1991 to 20.1.1992 wherein the premises indicated in this policy was “Tehshil Kachehari Baramati”? It is by now a settled proposition of law that the policy is the contract between the parties and parties are bound by the contents of the policy as also the terms of the policy. We are unable to appreciate the plea raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant that since this was a movable property the change in location was not so material to have made the insurer to repudiate the claim. In this context, we have also seen the two judgments quoted/relied upon by the State Commission. After going through these judgments, we are in full agreement with the State Commission that the order of this Commission in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. M/s. Annpurna KrishiKendra (supra), is not applicable for the same reason as expounded by the State Commission in its order. The National Commission hold the same view-even now, as expounded in our earlier order in the case of S. Rathinavelu v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors (supra), i.e., that it is for the insured to get the policy endorsed in case of change of location which has not happened in this case. The terms and conditions of the policy are binding on the parties and in this case there is a clear violation on the part of the appellant not to get an endorsement about the change of location where photocopier was to be kept.
6. In the aforementioned circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the State Commission.
7. This appeal is devoid of merit, hence dismissed.