ORDER
Mr. Justice J.K. Mehra, Member
1. This revision petition arises out of the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Rajasthan, whereby the State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum. The facts in brief which lead the complainant to approach the District Forum are as under :
2. The complainant, M/s. Jai Puneet Wires, a factory which carries on business of receiving goods from the factories and draws copper wire and return the same to the factories from whom it received goods for drawing. The complainant got his factory insured for Rs. 6,50,000/-including machinery for a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- and stock in process, semi-finished goods and stock of raw material and finished goods amounting to Rs. 4 lakhs. This insurance was against burglary and theft also.
3. On the midnight 9/10,2.1995 a theft took
place wherein the complainant not only lost the copper wire belonging to him but also the copper belong to different customers. This fact was reported to the police and also to the Insurance Company, who on being informed, appointed a Surveyor. The Insurance Company assessed the loss at Rs. 5,756/-. Feeling not satisfied with the amount assessed and offered by the Insurance Company, the complainant approached the District Forum by way of a complaint. The contention of the Insurance Company before the District Forum was that the copper wire weighing 977.400 kgs. which was received for processing from Ujala Cables and the copper wire weighing 977.900 kgs. which was received for processing from Madhu Glass Chemicals, Alwar, did not belong to the complainant and hence, the Insurance Company rejected the claim on the ground that the policy did not cover the stocks that were not owned by the complainant. The District Forum, upon hearing both sides, on the point whether the stocks received for processing from other factories is covered under the insurance policy of the complainant or not, held as under :
“The insurance policy of the insured is carefully perused. It has been seen in the property head of the insurance policy that stock in process, semi-finished goods, stock of raw material and finished goods has been recorded as insured under head item (e). But, there is no exception to the extent that insured’s own goods are only insured. In this situation the stock lying in the complainant’s godown are covered under the policy irrespective of the fact that sold stock has been received from other firms. The opposite party has not suggested any exception to segregate the same. Under the circumstances it is not fair in our opinion that the opposite party has suggested that the stock weighing 1,188 kgs. not owned by the complainant, being owned by Ujala Cables, Alwar and Madhu Glass Chemicals, Alwar was burgled and thereby rejected the claim. Under these circumstances the opposite party is ordered that he has to investigate
afresh within one month to decide the claim of the complainant assuming the stock received from Ujala Cables and Madhu Glass Chemicals within the purview of the insurance policy and further pay the interest at the rate of 15 percent p.a. on the said sum and further pay a sum of Rs. 200/- as litigation expenses.”
4. With these observations, the District Forum allowed the complaint. The Insurance Company, not satisfied with the order of the District Forum, went in appeal to the State Commission, which after hearing both sides and examination of the facts upheld the order of the District Forum by reducing the interest awarded by the District Forum from 15 percent to 12 percent. Still not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, the Insurance Company came in revision before us.
5. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. We have also gone through the order of the State Commission as well as the District Forum. In this case the theft took place on the intervening night between 9/10.2.1995. At that time only cover note had been issued after premium was collected. The insurance policy was actually issued on 10.11.1995 after a considerable time had lapsed from the date of the incident. In the cover note no distinction is observed between the stocks on trust or stocks in process, finished or semi-finished goods whereas such distinction has been brought in while issuing the policy. The Insurance Company after issuing the policy repudiated the claim. Such practice has earlier been disapproved and deprecated by us that the Insurance Companies take considerable time to issue policies at times after the incident giving rise to the claim. When such a thing happens, they so tailor the policy as to exclude the risk covered or substantial part of risk for which cover has been issued. The present case is yet another incident, which has come to light. Incidentally, in the present case details of the property insured have been duly mentioned in the cover note without any limitation or
distinction between the stocks belonging to the insured or stocks held by the insured under trust or for any job work. In fact, the cover note indicates that the insurance cover was taken for all stocks in the premises. In the face of such cover note, the policy to be issued had to be in line with the cover note for that is the risk issued. Issuance of policy which tends to exclude a considerable part of these stpcks which are not excluded in the cover note will not appear to be bona fide and rather can be termed as a mala fide and fraudulent attempt to tailor the policy with a view to escape the liability. We are not able to understand as to why should it take the Insurance Company a better part of the tenure of the insurance policy to issue the policy. In the present case the risk covered is w.e.f. 9.2.1995, but the policy was issued only on 10.11.1995. There is an inordinate delay in issuance of the policy. In a way, such long delays in issuance of the policies by itself constitute deficiency in service. Apart from that, Mr. Vishnu Mehra, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has raised an objection to our having a look at the provisional cover note. Mr. Mehra has not disputed the correctness of this document. But, he has only raised a technical objection that this document should not be looked into because, this was not filed before the Court of first instance. In fact, the plea of the complainant has all along been that they had got all the stocks, raw-material, stock-in-process, finished or semi-finished goods were covered, apart from the machinery and it is based on their cover note. The authenticity of the document is not in dispute and a document which furthers the cause of justice and is the basis for preparation of the policy can be looked into and, in fact, we wanted the respondent to produce the same. Things would have been different if its authenticity was in dispute, then, the plea of Mr. Mehra in the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment, Modern Insulators Ltd. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., I (2000) CPJ 1 (SC), could be sustained. But, admittedly, the correctness of the document is not in doubt. In the light of that, we do not consider it
appropriate or in the interest of justice to ignore looking into the provisional cover note. When cover note is read, along with the policy, which was issued months later, in fact after the lodgment of claim, we find there is a very material difference in the two which cannot be accepted. May be while preparing the policy there has been some over-sight, even if benefit of doubt is given to the Insurance Company, the policy could not, in any case, be at variance from the cover note qua the risk concerned which in the present case is. For that reason we do not find any substance in this revision petition. As a result, we uphold the order of the State Commission and dismiss the Revision Petition, but without any order as to costs.