JUDGMENT : Asper S.K. Kulshrestha , J. (President ): - Thiscomplaint has been filed by the complainant-M.P. Warehousing & Longistic Corporation against the United India InsuranceCompany Ltd., respondent. It is averred that complainant is established underthe Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 and is engaged in the business of storing tendu patta , fertilizers,food grains, seeds, sugar etc. in its godown situatedall over in the State of M.P. The complainant invited tenders for insurance ofthe goods stored in the go down of the complainant for the year 2003-04 and theopposite party gave its proposal which was accepted by the complainant. Theopposite party gave premium rates for Fire Floater Declaration Policy videletter dated 27-2-2003 . Theopposite party vide letter dated 29-3-2003 confirmed the rate and assured that the same will be confirmed by TAG & noextra premium will be charged. 2.A fire broke out on 10-4-2003 at 4.30 p.m. in the go down No. 3, Harpalpur and police report was lodged vide document No. C-7. The opposite party was informed by fax on the same dayas per document No . C-8. Thecomplainant submitted its claim on 25-4-2003 for a sum of Rs . 66 ,15,691 /-for tendu patta and Rs . 28,77,795/- for other food grains. The claim washowever, revised and submitted on 8-8-2003 of Rs . 68 ,18,958 /- for tendu patta and Rs . 29,62,279/- for other food grains. Salvage thus, soldby auction fetched an amount of Rs . 16,882/- from tendu patta and Rs . 4 ,81,417 /- from other goods. 3.That the repudiation of the claim on the part of the Insurance Company wasbased on the fact that 5% of the total value of the stocks, should not havebeen stored in a godown and, therefore, the insuredcommitted breach of condition and warranty of the policy and demanded extrapremium of Rs . 72 ,14,777 /-for tendu patta and Rs . 3,18,362/- for other food grains. The loss assessed bythe surveyor was Rs . 22 ,34,625 /-for food grains and Rs . 7,97,777/- for tendu patta . The opposite partyhas contested the complaint of the complainant. It is stated that thecomplainant had obtained two Standard Fire & Special Perils Policies forcovering insurance of the go downs owned by the complainant of 219 differentplaces all over the Madhya Pradesh. Both the policies were issued on the basisof the information of stock provided by the insured on the principle of utmostgood faith. It is stated that thecomplainant had obtained two Standard Fire & Special Perils Policies forcovering insurance of the go downs owned by the complainant of 219 differentplaces all over the Madhya Pradesh. Both the policies were issued on the basisof the information of stock provided by the insured on the principle of utmostgood faith. At the time of issuance of the policies, it was intimated to theinsured that any type of hazardous goods would not be stored in excess of 5% ofthe total storing capacity. The opposite party quoted a rate of Re. 1 % keepingin mind that no hazardous goods for more than 5% will be stored in the godowns during the currency of the policies. 4.We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant. None appears for therespondent. 5. In the policy Exh . C-5, ithas been clearly mentioned in Clause 6 under the caption "Description ofproperty" that the policy was for Fire Floater Declaration Policy on stockof tendu patta coveringrisk of RSMDT and spontaneous combustion. Thus, along with the food grains, tendu patta was also fullycovered. There is no evidence to suggest that any limitations have been imposedby the policy. There is no recital to the effect that the complainant would notbe kept more than 5% of the total value of the stocks. We have seen the policy Exh . C-5. At serial No. 6 in thecaption of "Description of property", it is clearly mentioned thatFire Floater Declaration Policy on stock of Tendu Patta covering risk of RSMDT and spontaneous combustion,total sum assured Rs . 50 crores . 6.Learned Counsel for the complainant has submitted that no \ limitation such asstorage of more than 5% tendu patta or food grains was scribed and, therefore, the complainant is entitled to thefull amount claimed. We are of the view that the calculation of the respondentis based more on the conjecture that commodity cannot exceed 5% in the godown . The surveyor has shown the various offers made bythe other samitis , which read as follows:- Name of Samiti Union No. Lot No. Offer ( Rs.jer St. We are of the view that the calculation of the respondentis based more on the conjecture that commodity cannot exceed 5% in the godown . The surveyor has shown the various offers made bythe other samitis , which read as follows:- Name of Samiti Union No. Lot No. Offer ( Rs.jer St. 13ag) Padaria 1151 433 61.00 Vikrampura 1141 421 54.00 Mataguwan 1149 430 52.00 Bijavar 1161 461 89.00 Bharatpura 1165 459 111.00 Pathari 1161 449 87.00 Deora 1161 452 62.00 Kairakalan 1160 446 57.00 7.The main difference between the price claimed by the complainant and assessedby the surveyor is with regard to the tendu patta . According to the complainant the price is Rs . 465/- while according to the surveyor it is Rs . 59.31. The surveyor has pointed out that under theStandard and Special Perils Policy, the loss is always settled at the incurredcost or market price of the goods, whichever is less. Therefore, the surveyorhas not considered the value of the damaged stock at Rs .465/- as it was the cost of the M.P. Minor Forest Co-operative Federation Ltd.,but he considered the maximum at Rs . 69.78 perstandard bag as this price is well documented and the Federation has alsoaccepted this officer. 8.Since, we are not approving the applicability of any cost and also notrestricting storage of tendu patta only to the limit of 5% and so also the other food grains, we find that it is afit case in which direction should be given to the Insurance Company for surveyafresh. We also make it clear that all points which had already been clarifiedby us in this order, shall not be reopened by thesurveyor and he should examine in detail the damage caused to the complainant. 9.With the aforesaid direction the complaint is disposed of. There shall be noorder as to costs of this complaint.