JUDGMENT - Justice G.G. LONEY, President:---The complainant filed this complaint claiming the settlement of his insurance claim as the opposite party i.e. National Insurance Co. (hereinafter referred to as "Insurance Company") has rejected his claim on the untenable and unreasonable grounds. Shortly stated the facts are that the complainant was running ginning plant for processing raw cotton. The complainant alleged that he obtained from the opposite party an Insurance Policy to cover the risk of fire and flood for the period between 22-11-1990 to 21-11-1991 vide cover Note No. 505059 of 1990. According to the complainant on 18-4-1991 there was fire in the plant on account of short-circuit in which the plant was completely burnt down. It is also alleged that the fire-brigade was summoned immediately but it could not save the plant. The complainant also alleged that on 18-4-1991 he informed the opposite party orally and on 19-4-1991 in writing and claimed the settlement of his claim. The police was also informed and the police conducted the investigation and drawn the spot panchanama on 18-4-1991 i.e. on date of incident. The complainant further alleged that he submitted his claim duly filed in through the agent of the opposite party and the documents demanded from time to time by the opposite party. It is therefore alleged by the complainant that inspite of full satisfaction of the opposite party about a loss suffered by the complainant in the incident of fire, his claim has not been settled. The complainant therefore, claimed in this complaint Rs. 73,000/- for the loss of structure and Rs. 23,000 for the loss of plant and Rs. 96,243 against the loss of stock. Thus, there is a claim for compensation of Rs. 1,92,243. The complainant also claimed interest and compensation. Thus total claim of Rs. 2,57,858/- has been made. The opposite party filed its written version dated 8-5-1993 and opposed the complainants claim on the ground that under sections 17 18(i) of the Maharashtra Raw Cotton (Processing, Procurement and Marketing) Act, 1971, the ginning of cotton is prohibited and hence the contract of insurance in relation to the policy in question is void and hence not sustainable in law. 2. We have heard Shri R.B. Kalantri, Advocate for the complainant and Shri P.S. Khadse, Advocate for the opposite party. 2. We have heard Shri R.B. Kalantri, Advocate for the complainant and Shri P.S. Khadse, Advocate for the opposite party. We have also perused the relevant papers and gave our anxious consideration to the contentions raised by both the parties. 3. It is true that ginning of cotton is prohibited under the aforesaid enactment of 1971. It is also true that the insurance is a contract within the meaning of the law of contract. But we find that in this case despite the prohibition of ginning of cotton under the provisions of Maharashtra Raw Cotton Act, 1971, the Insurance Company granted an Insurance Policy to cover the loss of complainant. Thus there is no dispute about the grant of Insurance Policy by the opposite party to the complainant to cover the loss of his factory and the stock in the profession of Ginning. However, we find that the Insurance Company knowing full well that complainant is in the business of Ginning despite legal prohibition on consideration of the facts, issued the Insurance Policy to cover the activity of Ginning of Raw Cotton indulged by the complainant. The structure, Ginning plant, stock of all kinds of Ginned and Unginned Cotton in loose stored/and/or lying in building if burnt in fire has been insured. The total value of the Insurance Policy is Rs. 2,00,000/- and the opposite party has accepted voluntarily from the complainant premium of Rs. 5,156/-. The stock insured by the opposite party clearly stipulated the stock of all kind of Ginned and Unginned cotton in loose and/or in bags and/or empty bags lying in the building. The Insurance Company has nowhere contended that the stock of Ginned and Unginned cotton lying in the building destroyed in the fire in question was not owned by the complainant. It nowhere reveals during the survey made by the surveyor R.M. Zawar that the said cotton was unauthorisedly stocked by the complainant. However, it is mentioned by the surveyor that the insured could not furnish the list of persons from whom he had purchased the said cotton and what was the quantity of stock. The complainant valued his stock at Rs. 1,10,350. 4. In support of its defence, the opposite party relied on legal opinion rendered by its counsel and the affidavit filed by its Divisional Manager, Dr. M.G. Patil. The complainant valued his stock at Rs. 1,10,350. 4. In support of its defence, the opposite party relied on legal opinion rendered by its counsel and the affidavit filed by its Divisional Manager, Dr. M.G. Patil. For the reasons stated above, we do not agree with the opinion rendered by the counsel of the opposite party. In our view, if the complainant is guilty of breach of provisions of sections 17 18 of the Maharashtra Raw Cotton Act, 1971 then the opposite party is equally guilty to insure such a factory knowing full well the provisions of Maharashtra Raw Cotton Act, 1971. The opposite party can not claim the ignorance of aforesaid law at the time of issue of the Insurance Policy in question. The legal deficiency, existing in the service of opposite party is not improved by filing the affidavit or the filing of opinion of their counsel, since we are of the view that the Insurance Policy covered the risk of building, plant and machinery and the stock lying in the building. At the most it can be seen that the complainant is not entitled for the claim of stock of ginned and unginned cotton which was lying in the premises prohibited by the aforesaid enactment. But by no stretch of imagination the contract of insurance in this case providing indemnity for the loss of building, plant and other conveyance can be rendered as unlawful and void on the basis of provision of section 23 of the Contract Act. The contract of insured providing indemnity to cover the loss of building and plant can not be said to be a contract, defeating the provision of any law or its demand of opposed to the public policy. In our considering view, therefore, the complainants claim for the settlement of his loss sustained in the fire as regards his building and plant can very safely be granted to him. The rejection of the complainants claim clearly lies in the areas of negligence in the service of the opposite party. The opposite party has clearly fell in error in construing the legal provisions of the Contract of the Insurance Policy in this case on the basis of proved facts. We have already observed that the Insurance Policy in this case was provided to cover the loss to building, plant and stocks. The opposite party has clearly fell in error in construing the legal provisions of the Contract of the Insurance Policy in this case on the basis of proved facts. We have already observed that the Insurance Policy in this case was provided to cover the loss to building, plant and stocks. The Insurance was not provided to cover the risk of illegal trade of Ginning of cotton. Therefore, there is no question of repudiation of the claim as regards the loss of building, plant and machinery. The Insurance Policy was granted to cover the risk as to indemnify loss of building, plant and stock of ginned and unginned cotton lying in the building. 5. The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs. 2,53,858/- for the loss of structure, plant and Ginned and Unginned cotton stock and interest. We find that the surveyor has quantified the complainants loss for the building/shed under Item `A of the Policy for Rs. 67,500/- which is accepted by the opposite party. Similarly the surveyor in item `B of the policy has quantified the complainants loss for the machinery for Rs. 42,500. 6. The surveyor has assessed the complainants loss of Ginned and Unginned Cotton Stock for Rs. 62,070/-. We find that the complainant undisputably suffered the loss of his building, machinery and Ginned and Unginned cotton stock-in trade due to incident of fire and hence he is entitled to receive his claim mentioned above. We therefore, pass the following order. ORDER 7. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to settle the complainants claim for Rs. 2,53,858/- within 30 days from the receipt of this order and make its payment to the complainant. If the opposite party fails to settle the complainants claim within the stipulated time, then the amount shall carry interest @ 18% p.a. till realisation. The complainant also be paid Rs. 500/- towards cost of this complaint. Complaint allowed. *****