The gist of the case is as follows:

The complainant is the Managing director of M/s Fine Products and is running the business of extracting oil from eucalyptus and lemon grass. The unit is financed by State Bank of Travancore, Kolagappara branch and the bank has taken the insurance with the opposite party and the premium was either adjusted or debited in the loan account of the Complainant. The policy proposal was made by the bank. The officials of the opposite party has inspected the firm before issuing the policy. On 2.5.2001 the firm had caught fire in the night between 9 and 11 and the entire stock in the shed was destroyed in fire. There was stock of lemon grass oil worth Rs.79,000/- and eucalyptus oil worth Rs.60,000/-. The total loss is calculated to Rs.1,89,000/- which includes the loss of raw leaves and utensils. The matter was intimated to the opposite party and a claim was preferred with all necessary documents. To settle the claim the opposite party has appointed a surveyor and he assessed the loss and damage after inspecting the site. But the opposite party has repudiated the claim on flimsy grounds. The repudiation of the claim is frivolous and intolerable. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant prays for an order directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.1,89,000/- as the loss sustained to the complainant with 18% interest and to pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and other costs.

2. The opposite party filed version admitting the policy. The opposite party states that the claim made by the complainant is fraudulent and with an intension to make unlawful gain from the opposite party. The opposite party denies that the stock in the complainants firm was completely damaged. The opposite party denies that there was a stock of lemon grass oil worth Rs.79,000/- and eucalyptus oil worth Rs.60,000/-. The complainant has not sustained a loss of Rs.1,89,000/-. The complainant had removed the distilled oil before catching fire and has sustained loss to the tune of 2 ton of eucalyptus waste and ashed used by the workers for taking rest. Immediately on receipt of intimation of fire, the opposite party has appointed an independent surveyor to conduct spot survey. After getting the initial spot survey report the opposite party has verified the file and appointed Sri. Haridasan Nair, private investigator Begum Complex Calicut to investigate in to the matter and he has submitted a report dated 30.3.02. The surveyor has found that the fire incident to the unit of the insured was deliberate and is made for wrongful gain from the insurance company and that there was no loss of lemon grass oil or eucalyptus oil as claimed by the complainant. The averment in the complaint that the complainant used to sell the oil extracts at Ootty is to be proved by the complainant. The bills and stock registers are manipulated and forged by the complainant so as to make unlawful gains. Therefore the opposite party prays for an order dismissing the complaint.

3. The complainant was examined as PW1 Ext. A1 to Ext. A7 are marked and one witness was examined on the side of the complainant is PW2. The opposite party was examined as OPW1 and documents were marked as Ext. B1 series, Ext. B2 and Ext. B3, Ext. B3(a) to Ext. B3(f), on the side of the opposite party. One summoned document from the opposite party was marked as Ext. X1.

4. The points to be considered are as follows.

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief?

5. Point No.1:- This is a case where the opposite party had repudiated the claim where the surveyor appointed by the opposite party had assessed the damage of Rs.1,67,412/-. The opposite party had appointed an investigator and the investigator had recommended for the repudiation of claim. For determining whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the forum has evaluated these two documents and examined their veracity.

6. Ext. X1 reports that 2 sheds were damaged and no damage was caused to the distilling apparatus, the platform hearth, cooling system, diesel pump set. But PW1 and PW2 clearly state that fire did not affect the shed in which the distilling was carried on. As per their deposition only one shed which was used for keeping the stocks and used by the workers as resting place had caught fire. But the surveyors assessment of loss includes the damage for both sheds. The complaint is that for purpose of extracting the oil, he had constructed a thatched shed. The proof affidavit filed by the complainant also describes the shed as thatched. The surveyor in Ext. X1 had shown that 2 sheds roofed with lite sheet had damaged. The surveyor perceived remnants of 10 plastic cannas. As per Ext. X1, due to the intensity of fire, nearby bamboo branch has suffered

extensive damage. The Ext. B3(f), the Police mahazar also affirms that it is the temporary shed adjacent to the main shed which had caught fire and there is no damage to the main distilling shed. The police noted the cannas melted by the fire and state that the nearby bamboo branches were dried by the heat of fire.

7. The fire force report (Ext. A3) is that the fire is from hearth whereas the reason of fire in the police complaint is from kerosene lamp or something. As per X1 report, the cause of fire cannot be ascertained or conclusively proved. Ext. X1 state that on the day of occurrence, there was no distilling and state that the watchman on duty has put out the only kerosene lamp before he went off in night and the possibility of fire caused by a cigerate stud discarded by a pedestrian walking on the foot path cannot be ruled out. In the deposition before the forum, PW2 states that he and Mustafa had gone to take food keeping a kerosene lamp lit in the shed and when were coming back, they saw the shed is in fire ( The surveyor seems more precise and aware of the facts than the complainant and his employees themselves about the incident).

8. The surveyors assessment for damage of eucalyptus oil is based on Ext. A2. In Ext. A2 stock is shown as 255.300 as on 2.5.2001. The production on that date is shown as 46.400 and total is shown as 301.700. The surveyor affirms that as there was no production at the unit on 2.5.2001 46.400 kgs of oil shown against the date of 2.5.01 pertains to production at similar unit of the owner elsewhere and the surveyor makes a guesswork that as that is a small quatity of 46.400, it is unlikely that this oil has been brought to the site. If that is so, Ext. A2 is not a register regarding the production of fine products itself. It includes records regarding similar plant of the owner elsewhere. For assessing the loss of lemon grass oil, the surveyor relays on another production register which is marked as Ext. A7. Regarding that register also, surveyor affirms that the production of lemongrass oil shown as on 2.4.2001 pertains to an another plant of

the owner elsewhere. So, Ext. A7 also is not regarding the production of lemongrass oil at fine products alone. So there is sufficient reason to conclude that the report of the Surveyor is wrong and incorrect.

9. On the other hand, the investigator found that the fire incident was deliberate and for wrongful gain and there was no loss of eucalyptus oil or lemongrass oil as claimed by the insured.

The investigator had not furnished any clear proof for that the fire was deliberate or willfully caused. But there is sufficient reason to disbelieve Ext. X1 and the complaint. The complaint had not mentioned quatum of stock that was damaged in the fire. The complainant has not disclosed the source of stock or source of raw materials.

10. There are several rulings of Hon. National Commission directing that the surveyors report has to be given greater importance (2008 (4) CPR 83 NC). The Hon. National Commission also held that surveyors are appointed by the insurance company and reports are to be given due importance and that one should have sufficient grounds not to agree with the assessment made by them (2004III CPJ 46 (NC)) In this case, it is found that there is sufficient reason to disagree with the surveyors report. The investigators report is more close to the facts and the claim is repudiated on the basis of this . So, Point No.1 is found against the complainant.

11. Point No.2: As there is no deficiency in service on the apart of the opposite party. Point No.2 also is found against the complainant.

Hence the complaint is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the day of 19^th November, 2008.