Ravi Shankar, Judicial Member

The Opposite Party in complaint No.52/2016 preferred this appeal against the order passed by Gadag District Consumer Commission which directed them to pay an insurance amount of Rs.7,72,098/- towards fire accident along with Rs.5,000/- towards mentally agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-

The complainant is dealing with electrical materials in the premises situated at CTS No:1634/3A Namjoshi Road, Gadag and he insured the said materials and electrical shop under the name and style P.A.Hublimath as a partnership firm with Panchaya Hublimath vide policy No.68070248140600000018 which was valid from 07/08/2014 to 06/08/2015. Such being the case on 08.10.2014 at about 12.30 PM, he received information that the premises caught fire and immediately he informed the same to the police and fire brigade. Due to this fire accident, the complainant suffered loss to the tune of Rs.54,00,000/-. After that the complainant approached the Opposite Party for compensation by virtue of the loss suffered due to fire accident. After receipt of the claim, they have appointed one IRDA approved surveyor to assess the loss and the said surveyor has assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.7,72,098/- and also gave an opinion that the complainant has no insurable interest as the shop was run by Hubllimath Electrical along with his son Ravi Hublimath, whereas the policy issued in the name and style of P.A.Hublimath. Hence, the shop was not run by the complainant and repudiated the claim basing on the report given by the surveyor. But the District Commission after trial, awarded an amount of Rs.7,72,098/- to be payable by the Opposite Party to the complainant under the policy. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred this appeal on many grounds and prays to set-aside the impugned order.

3. We have heard the arguments.

4. On going through the memorandum of appeal, certified copy of the order and documents produced before the District Commission, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had obtained shop insurance policy towards electric items and shop under CTS No.1634/3A. It is also an admitted fact that during the policy is in force, the shop caught fire and suffered a loss. The independent IRDA approved surveyor appointed by the Opposite Party has assessed the loss at Rs.7,72,098/- and also gave an opinion that the said shop was run by P.A.Hublimath under the name and style of H.M. Electrical dealer and hence complainant has no insurable interest and he has transferred the ownership to partnership firm to other firm. Basing on the said report given by the surveyor, the Opposite Party has repudiated the claim.

5. We are of the opinion that on looking at the policy issued by them, it stands in the name of complainant himself. It is only an internal arrangements done by the complainant and they are all the family members who are rearranged the partnership firm and as on the date of the accident, the policy stood in the name of complainant and nowhere the complainant has stated that he has discontinued the said business. Mere change of name of the shop does not preclude the Opposite Party to settle the claim. The appellants have wrongly repudiated the claim made by the complainant and the District Commission has rightly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the complaint and allowed the complaint. The appellant/Opposite Party is liable to pay the suggested amount of Rs.7,72,098/-. There is no any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the District Commission. Hence, the appeal fails. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER:
<

br />The appeal is dismissed. No costs. The impugned order dated:08.09.2017 passed Gadag District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.C.No.52/2016 is hereby confirmed. The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the concerned District Commission to pay the same to the respondent/complainant. Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission.