Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Surya Kant and M.M. Sundresh

JUDGMENT

M.M. Sundresh, J.

Leave granted.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length.

ON FACTS

1. The Appellant secured a Standard Fire & Special Perils policy from the Respondent on 28.07.2012. The policy was effective from 28.07.2012 to 27.07.2013. It was meant to cover a shop situated in the basement of the building. However, the exclusion Clause of the contract specifies that it does not cover the basement. Due inspection of the shop was made which was actually situated on the other side of the road from the office of Respondent No. 1. Not only this shop of the Appellant, but yet another shop similarly situated, was also insured by Respondent No. 1. The Appellant continued to pay the premium promptly.

2. The Appellant put up further construction, for which due notice was given and due inspection was also made. The shop met with a fire accident for which the Appellant raised a claim. The surveyor of Respondent No. 1 also made an inspection, on the basis of which the Appellant was instructed to refurnish its shop for the purpose of due evaluation. While arriving at the sum payable, the surveyor did notice the fact that the earlier inspections were made and that the fact that the shop was in a basement was to the knowledge of the insurer. The claim made was repudiated by Respondent No. 1, taking umbrage under the exclusion clause.

3. The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') rejected the contention of Respondent No. 1 on the premise that there was no adequate disclosure, the mandatory provisions have not been followed, as such the insurer was deficient in service and indulged in unfair trade practice. The fact that a similarly placed shop was also covered, was not in dispute. The amount payable is only after due deduction of the goods meant for the third party.

4. The aforesaid decision was overturned by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the National Commission'), despite a finding to the effect that Respondent No. 1 was not in compliance of the mandate of the law and inspection was indeed done prior to the execution of the contract, and even thereafter. Having found a deficiency in service, it placed reliance upon the exclusion Clause in setting aside the decision of the State Commission while granting a sum of Rs. 7.5 lakhs. It is this decision of the National Commission which is under challenge before us.

SUBMISSION AT THE BAR

5. Shri. A.K. Ganguli, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the National Commission has not overturned the reasoning of the State Commission both on facts and law. When once there is a finding which is not in dispute, the consequence would follow.

6. On the contrary, it is submitted by Smt. Shantha Devi R., learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents that the existence of the exclusion Clause is not in dispute. Admittedly, the shop was situated in the basement, as such, the mere fact that the decision of the National Commission was accepted would not disentitle the Respondents to contend that the finding that there was knowledge even at the time of the execution of the contract, is not correct. In any case, it cannot be the basis for restoring the decision of the State Commission.