1. THIS appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Kangra at Dharamshala, dated 22.4.1998 whereby the complaint of the appellant/ complainant (hereinafter to be referred to as the complainant) has been dismissed.
2. THE facts alleged in the complaint are that the complainant had insured the stocks of his shop to the extent of Rs. 70,000/- with the respondent/opposite party (hereinafter to be referred to as the Assurance Company) for the period from 19.8.1994 to 18.8.1995 against the risk of fire. On 23.10.1994, it appears the fire broke out in the shop due to firing of the crackers from the adjacent shop in which the stocks of Kiryana articles worth Rs. 65.000/- have been damaged. FIR to this effect was lodged by the complainant on the same day. Although the Surveyor was appointed, who visited the spot and recorded the evidence, yet the Assurance Company did not settle the claim of the complainant and as such the complainant was constrained to file the complaint.
The complaint has been resisted by the Assurance Company mainly on the ground that no doubt as per the Rapat Rojnamcha (Annexure A-2), the fire had broken out due to firing of the crackers in the shop of the complainant and the fire crackers lying in the shop of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- have been damaged, but no loss to the Kiryana articles lying in the shop was reported by the complainant. The fire crackers, according to the Assurance Company, were not insured and moreover the damaged stocks infact have not been produced and as such the claim of the complainant is not tenable.
The District Forum have found that only Kiryana articles are insured and infact which were not damaged and as per the Rapat Rojnamcha dated 23.10.1994 (Annexure A-2), the fire crackers worth Rs. 15,000/- appear to have been destroyed in the fire which are not insured and the complaint as such has been dismissed.
3. WE have heard the arguments of Mr. Naresh Sharma, learned Counsel for the complainant and Mr. B.S. Parmar, learned Counsel for the Assurance Company.
We have considered the findings of the District Forum in the context of the submission made by the learned Counsels and are of the opinion that the finding given by the District Forum that under the cover of insurance, only Kiryana goods were covered and not the crackers, is not correct. It may be noticed that the cover note dated 2.8.1994 (Annexure A-l) covers the risk in respect of the articles/goods, which may be reproduced below:
"On stocks of all kinds of Kiryana goods, general merchandise goods and similar stocks of trade lying and stored in the shop situated the town J. Mukhi the above stocks belonging to insured under lien to the Bank. Building built of A-class construction."
4. THERE is no dispute that the crackers were also lying in the shop of the complainant. The question that requires consideration is "whether the crackers are covered under general merchandise goods and similar stocks of trade lying in the shop". "Merchandise" has been interpreted in The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary as "commodities of commerce; goods to be bought and sold. A kind of merchandise; a saleable commodity" THERE cannot be two opinions that the crackers would fall under the commodities of commerce, goods to be bought and sold and the merchandise goods and more particularly when they are qualified in the insurance cover as general merchandise goods, we have no hesitation to hold that not only the Kiryana goods but the crackers lying in the shop are clearly covered under the general merchandise goods and under the insurance cover. Further, in the Rapat Rojnamcha dated 23.10.1994 (Annexure A-II), it is clear and it has also been noticed by the District Forum that the fire crackers lying in the shop of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 15,000/- were destroyed in the fire and as such the complainant is entitled to this amount of Rs. 15,000/- on account of damage to the fire crackers lying in his shop. THERE is no material on the record to substantiate that Kiryana goods were also destroyed in the fire and the District Forum has rightly held so.
Our attention was drawn by the Counsel for the complainant to the affidavit dated 8.8.1997 of one Shri Raj Kumar, proprietor M/s. G.R. Brothers that loss of Rs. 65,000/- has been caused. Except this bald assertion, there is no evidence available on the record to support the claim of the complainant. Even the alleged list of Kiryana goods burnt in the fire placed on the file is a carbon copy and not attested by any person. Moreover, it is not supported by an affidavit and as such cannot be taken into consideration.
In the light of what is discussed above, the appeal is partly allowed and that the Assurance Company is directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 15,000/- as compensation on account of damage to his stocks of fire crackers lying in the shop alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of breaking out the fire on 23.10.1994 till the payment is actually made.
5. THERE is no order as to costs. Appeal partly allowed.
