JUDGMENT : Sudhakar, J. This appeal is filed against judgment and order dated 25-2-2009, passed by the learned J & K State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Jammu (for Short the Commission) in File No. 2037 on the ground that the Commission has mis-read the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance and awarded compensation. 2. The short issue on facts is as follows : 2(a). The respondent entered into a contract with National Insurance Company and obtained 'comprehensive Fire Policy-C' bearing No. 11/98/31/00142 which was operative from 23-8-1998 to 22-8-1999. The contract for insurance is to indemnify the insured for loss due to fire, lightning, Explosion/implosion etc. The sum insured under the policy was to the tune of Rs. 40.00 lacs and a premium of Rs. 16,749/- was paid by the respondent. The subject-matter of the insurance for clarity reads as follows: 'Subject-matter of insurance : On the building used as mills godown, boundary walls and furniture, fixture fitting, electrical and sanitary fitting Rs. 14,00,000/- on the machinery plants equipment Rs. 8,00,000/- and on the feeds material finished and semi finished of Rs. 18,00,000/- total Rs. 40,00,000/- and/or lying in the mill of 1st class construction at the above said address. 2(b). Respondent is stated to be running a Poultry Feed Unit since the year 1996 at Barnai, Akhnoor Road, Jammu. Certain finished and semi finished stocks were lying in the open place in the premises of the mill which are called Jawala Fish. It is alleged that in the mid-night of 7th and 8th of April, 1999 due to unforeseen circumstances, the raw material got burnt, therefore, a claim to the tune of Rs. 3,83,966/- was made, which was rejected by the Insurance Company. The surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company, however, assessed the value of loss to the extent of Rs. 91,263/-. The respondent approached the Commission. The Commission was of the view that policy of insurance covers the claim and negated the stand taken by the Surveyor and the Insurance Company. Hence, compensation was awarded in favour of the respondent to the tune of Rs. 3,83,966/- along with interest @ 6% per annum and litigation charges in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the loss suffered by him.' ? 3. The insurance Company has filed this appeal against the order of the Commission. 4. Hence, compensation was awarded in favour of the respondent to the tune of Rs. 3,83,966/- along with interest @ 6% per annum and litigation charges in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- for the loss suffered by him.' ? 3. The insurance Company has filed this appeal against the order of the Commission. 4. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the appellant upon the case titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sony Cheriyan reported in (1999) 6 SCC 451 : AIR 1999 SC 3252 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 17 has observed as under : '15. The insurance policy between the insurer and the insured represents a contract between the parties. Since, the insurer undertakes to compensate the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the insurance policy, the terms of the agreement have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. The insured cannot claim anything more than what is covered by the insurance policy...........' ? 5. Reliance is also placed upon the case titled General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandumull Jain and Anr., reported in AIR 1966 SC 1644 , wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 11 has observed as under : '11. ................................In interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance, the duty of the Court is to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties, because it is not for the court to make a new contract, however, reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves. Looking at the proposal, the letter of acceptance and the cover notes, it is clear that a contract of insurance under the standard policy for the fire and extended to cover flood, cyclone etc. had come into being.' ? 6. Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the terms of the contract extracted earlier states that what is covered by policy of insurance is only the loss of articles inside the mill building. It does not cover the semi finished goods lying in the open. In this regard, he placed reliance upon case titled Polymat India P. Ltd. and Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, reported in AIR 2005 SC 286 , and pleaded that what is covered will be goods lying within the mill premises i.e. plant and machinery and not good lying outside. In this regard, he placed reliance upon case titled Polymat India P. Ltd. and Anr. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others, reported in AIR 2005 SC 286 , and pleaded that what is covered will be goods lying within the mill premises i.e. plant and machinery and not good lying outside. Paragraph 23 of the said judgment is reproduced as under : '23. Therefore, after construing the terms of the contract is transpires that the intention between the parties was to cover the plant and machinery which were lying in the factory, i.e. in the covered area and in the shed and not the goods which were lying outside the covered area. Therefore, the order of the Commission directing the payment of 75% of the assessment made by the Surveyor of the goods which were lying inside and outside the factory was not correct approach on the part of the Commission.' ? 7. Learned counsel for appellant pleaded that the policy should be strictly construed and in accordance with the language used therein. Learned counsel for the respondents retracted the findings of the Commission and the endorsement in the policy to plead that the claim is covered and that there is not ambiguity. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. The issue raised in Polymat India’s case arose as follows:- 'M/s. Polymat India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. made a claim under two five policies bearing No. 101600/3101669/0 in relation to building machinery and accessories and furniture and other contents and other bearing No. 101600/3101670/0 regarding stocks and used/burn lubricating oil and refined oil in its factory premises.' 10. In that case, the issue was whether the policy covers the goods that were lying within the shed or will it include goods lying outside the shed also. Factually, it is recorded in the said case that in Clause 8 of the policy, there was a query raised as to whether goods are stored in open, in kaccha shed, timber built or thatched roof building. The insured clearly stated that there was no goods in the open or in the kaccha shed, timber built or thatched roof building. Thereby, what was covered under the policy is the goods falling within the factory/godown/office. This fact is evident from paragraphs 6 to 11 of the said judgment, which are as under : '6. The insured clearly stated that there was no goods in the open or in the kaccha shed, timber built or thatched roof building. Thereby, what was covered under the policy is the goods falling within the factory/godown/office. This fact is evident from paragraphs 6 to 11 of the said judgment, which are as under : '6. It was also observed that as per the guidelines in setting the claims 75% of loss should have been settled. No basis or reasons were given as to why original claim was not settled at 75% of loss as determined by the Surveyor which was not disputed. It was also observed that dilatory approach adopted by Insurance Company resulted in harassment to complainant and he had to suffer additional interest liability from time-to-time by the financial institutions and it was also observed that the assessee is entitled to 75% of the claim assessed by the surveyors i.e., 75% of Rs. 48,73,095.75, which comes to Rs. 36,54,821.25 and interest was levied @ 18% per annum commencing from two months after the receipt of the Surveyor’s report till the date of payment and also imposed the cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Aggrieved against this order, both these appeals were filed, one by Insurance Company and the other by M/s. Polymat India, hence both are disposed of by the common order. 7. The first and foremost question for consideration is, as per the terms of the policy whether all the goods which are lying within the shed or outside the shed are covered under the policy or not. In Policy No. 101600/3101670/0 under heading Property to be insured-which reads as under :- 'Stock in trade or merchandise consisting Rs. 15,00,000/- (A ground plan of the premises may please be sketched in the space provided showing also adjoining and/or adjacent property within 15m (50 ft.) therefrom.' ? Clause 8 of the Policy which is relevant for our purpose reads as under :- 'Are there any goods stored in the open, or is there is kutcha shed or timber built or thatched roof building with 15M (50ft.) or the property No. to which this proposal applied? If so, please give details.' ? 8. In the original policy, the expression used was 'Factory-cum-Godown-cum-Office' ?. 9. In another policy also in similar query No. 8, a similar answer was given that is in negative. 10. If so, please give details.' ? 8. In the original policy, the expression used was 'Factory-cum-Godown-cum-Office' ?. 9. In another policy also in similar query No. 8, a similar answer was given that is in negative. 10. The answer of the insured complainant was in negative that no goods are stored in open, or in kutcha shed or timber built or thatched roof building within 15M (50ft.) of the property to which proposal applies. In short that goods lying outside plant are not insured. 11. Therefore, the question is when the complainant themselves has given the answer in negative to the aforesaid queries in both the policies, whether the complainant is entitled to the benefit of loss occasioned to him on the goods lying outside the factory premises in the open.' ? 11. In view of the above-stated factual position, Hon'ble Supreme Court came to hold that expression goods used in the contract was in relation to goods within factory/godown/office. That the insured had clearly not included goods in other areas. In this context, it was interpreted that the parties are bound by the terms of the contract and in paragraph 23, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to hold that after construing the terms of the contract, the intention between the parties was to cover the plant and machinery and goods which were lying in the factory i.e., in the covered areas. It does not cover goods which were lying outside the covered area. Therefore, it approved the negation of the claim on the interpretation of the terms of the contract. 12. Insofar as the present case is concerned, we find that the subject-matter of the insurance as we have recorded earlier, has many components; the first one is building used as mill godown, the second aspect is the boundary wall and furniture, fixtures fitting, electrical and sanitary fitting, the third part is machinery and plant equipment and the fourth is feed material finished and semi finished. It is stated that the subject matter of the insurance is all the above lying in the mill which should be a first class construction in the above-stated address. 13. On a plain reading of the contract policy, there is no ambiguity or element of doubt that contract covers the entire mill, which should be a first class construction in the above said address. It covers all the four components as mentioned above. 13. On a plain reading of the contract policy, there is no ambiguity or element of doubt that contract covers the entire mill, which should be a first class construction in the above said address. It covers all the four components as mentioned above. There is no exclusion clause in the policy as in the case of Polymat India’s case. All that it says is the subject-matter of the insurance covers all the four components mentioned above lying in the mill against the fire, flood, storm etc. Therefore, the Commission was correct in interpreting the contract policy in favour of the claimant. There is no scope for a different interpretation. The one and only interpretation is that it covers all the four components including goods lying in the mill premises of 1st class construction. Once it is established that the goods are lying in the mill premises it is covered. There is no ambiguity or scope for this Court or Tribunal giving a different interpretation. Hence the said plea is rejected. 14. However, on the quantum the Commission appears to have stretched itself well beyond the documents relied upon by the insurance company and determined the same on a mere statement made by the claimant in a sum of Rs. 3,83,966/-. In this case, the surveyor’s report has assessed the loss at Rs. 91263/-, which has not been controverted by the respondent-insured in the manner known to law. We find no reason in the order of the Commission to award the amount as claimed by the insured which is contrary to the Surveyor’s report. The assessment admittedly was done in the presence of the insured. Therefore, to thar extent insurance company is entitled to make a plea that compensation should only be in a sum of Rs. 91,263/- and not Rs. 3,83,966/- as awarded by the commission. We accept appellant plea as tenable and hold accordingly. The loss to be compensated payable shall be restricted to Rs. 91,263/- only. 15. Appeal is partly allowed.