Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member

          This complaint pertains to alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent, Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Insurance Company’ for the sake of brevity) for arbitrarily repudiating the insurance claim on 26/9/2008 which arose on account of fire that broke out at the factory situated at Plot No.A-477, T.T.C. Industrial Estate, Mhape MIDC, Navi Mumbai on 23/4/2006.

[2]     Undisputed facts are that the Complainant, Smt. Sheela R. Ohri who is the proprietor of Emarsso International has a business of manufacture and export of readymade garments and for that purpose her workshop/factory is situated at Mhape MIDC, Navi Mumbai, supra.  She had taken a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from the Insurance Company covering her stock at the above-referred place.  Said stock was gutted to fire when a fire broke out on the second floor of the factory due to short-circuit.  In the result, the Complainant claims to have sustained a loss to the extent of `24,60,975/- and for which an insurance claim was made.  M/s. Parimal R. Shah and Company was appointed as a surveyor who visited the spot on 26/4/2006 and submitted his final report on 22/2/2008, which concluded as under:-

“Insured as on date of this report did not substantiate the loss or submitted required details or communicated in the matter.  Under the circumstances we are of the views that insured is not interested in pursuing the claim matter and have closed the file from our end as No claim.”

[3]     Based on the said recommendation the Insurance Company wrote to the Complainant repudiating the claim on 26/9/2008.

[4]     The Complainant gave particulars of the claim of `24,60,975/- as under:-

“LIST FOR FABRIC & READY-MADE GARMENT BURNT & BECAME ASH DUE TO FIRE AS ON 23-04-2006

”

[5]     Opponent Insurance Company as per its written version dated 20/1/2010 justified their repudiation.  It is specifically alleged on their behalf that is for the Complainant to substantiate the loss, which the Complainant failed to do.

[6]     The Complainant relied upon plethora of documents which are mere photocopies, unattested.  Some of the documents are referred by both the parties which include the policy document, information supplied by the Complainant per Fire Insurance Claim Form on 23/4/2006, fire report dated 28/4/2006 of Thane Belapur Industries Association Fire & Emergency Response Station and some of the correspondence to which a reference is made in the body of the order.  Since these documents are referred by both the parties, they are relied upon for the purpose of evidence.  Besides these documents, in evidence the Complainant, Smt. Sheela Ohri filed her own affidavit sworn in the month of July-2010 alongwith annexed documents.  Her affidavit and annexed document though bear the seal of a notary, it is not signed by a notary and it does not appear to be sworn at all before a notary or an officer of oath.  In effect, it is not an affidavit duly sworn and as such losing its evidentiary value.

[7]     Alongwith the written version, the Insurance Company has produced on the record an affidavit dated 10/12/2009 sworn by Smt. Vaishali Parab as their evidence.  Said affidavit appears to have been presented on 20/1/2010.  It is just an affirmation to the written version filed by the Opponent.

[8]     In the instant case, the facts of issuing of an insurance policy and that it was effective on the date of fire i.e. 23/4/2006 and the event of fire are not in dispute.  What is disputed is about the quantum of claim based upon the alleged loss due to burning of the garments and yarn.  Repudiation to which a reference is made earlier is due to the fact that the Complainant failed to supply the necessary particulars about the loss sustained and for want of which, according to the surveyor, he could assessed the loss.

[9]     Considering the report of the surveyor to which the Insurance Company obviously did not find any fault, they repudiated the insurance claim.  Thus, according to the Insurance Company, their action is based upon material placed before them and/or an enquiry made by them and thus, not being arbitrary, no deficiency in service on their part could be alleged.

[10]    It is tried to be submitted on behalf of the Complainant that they have supplied the documents asked by the surveyor per his letter dated 27/4/2006 on 8/6/2006.  Documents supplied inter-alia include copies of statement of an eye-witness Mr. Dinesh Ohri, Manager of M/s. Emarsso International, list of damaged items and total value thereof, supra, photocopies of Stock Register for the month of April-2006 alongwith last six months stock statement submitted to Saraswat Cooperative Bank Ltd., Purchase Register for the month of April-2006 for Navi Mumbai factor and a copy of the audited balance-sheet for the year ended 31/3/2005.  On receipt of these documents there were certain further queries made by the surveyor.  On 11/7/2006, the surveyor had written to the Complainant’s Director, Mr. Dinesh Ohri that Mr. Dinesh Ohri was not contactable and details submitted by the Complainant were not sufficient to work out the claim and, therefore, again requested the Complainant to give the details as mentioned in the said letter.  It may not be out of place to mention that it is also a case of the Complainant that all the relevant documents/registers were also burnt in the fire.

[11]    More important is the reply dated 14/7/2006 given by the Complainant to the surveyor.  It refers to a very pertinent fact that the surveyor asked for details on the basis of which the Chartered Accountant prepared the statement of loss and to which the Complainant submitted that it was not possible for them to provide the basis on which the details were worked out by the Chartered Accountant.  If it is so, the surveyor vis-à-vis the Insurance Company cannot be blamed for not accepting the assessment made by the Chartered Accountant of the alleged loss.  There is no independent evidence adduced on behalf of the Complainant to show as to what was the actual stock which was burnt and the value thereof.  Mere producing documents or referring them in the so-called affidavit of the Complainant is not sufficient to hold that these documents were proved and tendered in evidence.  No doubt, the degree of proof in a consumer complaint may not be very high but, at-least there should be some proof to infer genuineness of the documents and the contents thereof.

[12]    Copy of audit report for the financial year ending 31/3/2005 is also produced but without any supporting affidavit.  That report is also not relevant to establish the actual stock which was stored on the second floor of factory where the fire broke out.  Copies of the invoices which are unattested cannot be said to have been tendered in evidence.  They are also not relevant to establish the fact of actual stock which was burnt in the event of fire in question.  Same is the case in respect of copies of the Stock Statement Register.

[13]    Thus, we find that the Complainant miserably failed to establish the fact of stock which was actually burnt in fire and the value thereof.  In this background the final survey report and the action on the part of the Insurance Company, supra, in repudiating the claim cannot be faulted with.  Thus, we further find that the Complainant failed to establish her case and failed to show any deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company.  Thus, the complaint deserves to be dismissed.  We hold accordingly pass the following order:-

ORDER

Complaint stands dismissed.

In the given circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.

Pronounced on 13^th June, 2013