ORDER 1. This appeal has arisen from a judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ("NCDRC") dated 9 August 2018. 2. The NCDRC has, while coming to the conclusion that there was a deficiency of service directed the appellant to pay a sum of Rupees One Crore Seventy Seven Lakhs Ninety Three Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Two together with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum, from 9 January 2006. 3. The claim of the respondent on the basis of which there is a finding of a deficiency of service is in the nature of an insurance claim. The machineries of the respondent were warehoused at Chennai, Vasai and Delhi and insured for a total value of Rs 1.77 crores. A fire took place on 5 January 2006 at an exhibition in Mumbai where the machineries had been transported. 4. Though the judgment of the NCDRC has traversed a wide area, we find that it can be sustained on the basis of the Floater clause which is contained in the Fire Insurance and Special Perils Policy. 5. The Floater clause is as follows:- "In consideration of Floater Extra charged over and above the Policy rate the S.I. in aggregate under the Policy is available for any one, more, or all locations as specified in respect of movable property. At all times during the currency of this Policy the insured should have a good internal audit and accounting procedure under which the total amount at risk and the locations can be established at any particulars time if required. The changes in the address of locations specifically declared at inception should be communicated." 6. The fact that the machines were being moved for the purposes of the exhibition (Photo Fair-2006) which was organised at Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai from 7 January 2006 to 10 January 2006 was duly intimated to the insurer. 7. The submission of the insurer, however, is that the respondent had sought a fresh insurance cover under its letter dated 30 December 2005 and before the proposal was processed, the fire occurred on 5 January 2006. 8. The Floater clause contained in the Fire Insurance and Special Perils Policy was sufficient to sustain the claim of the insured. 7. The submission of the insurer, however, is that the respondent had sought a fresh insurance cover under its letter dated 30 December 2005 and before the proposal was processed, the fire occurred on 5 January 2006. 8. The Floater clause contained in the Fire Insurance and Special Perils Policy was sufficient to sustain the claim of the insured. The Floater clause indicates that in consideration of an extra premium which has been charged, the sum insured in the policy is available for any one or more or all of the locations as specified in respect of the moveable property. Changes in the address of the locations which were declared at the inception were to be communicated. 9. This clearly indicates that under the Floater clause all that was required was a communication by the insured to the insurer in the change of location. The NCDRC has noted that there was a long course of business dealings between the appellant and the respondents. In the past as well, the machineries of the respondent had been covered under an insurance cover when they were moved for the purposes of exhibition. In view of the Floater clause, the claim clearly fell within the purview of the peril insured. The insurer was informed about the location to which the machinery insured was being moved. 10. For the above reasons, we affirm the order passed by the NCDRC. 11. The appeal shall, accordingly, stand dismissed. No costs.