1.       These two appeals by the common Appellants arise out of two complaint cases, CC/12/01 instituted on 24.01.2012 and CC/12/04 instituted on 09.02.2012 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chhattisgarh aggrieved by the in-action of the New India Assurance Company Limited in the first complaint and against the National Insurance Company in the second complaint, wherein the Insurance Companies proceeded against the Complainant to deny the claim on “no claim” basis. The denial of the claim therefore in both the cases were on different grounds but are based almost on similar facts. The State Commission has rejected both the complaints holding that the Complainant had been unable to establish the genuineness of the claim and hence deserved to be dismissed.

2.       Since there is a slight difference in the facts of both the complaints giving rise to these appeals, therefore the facts and the arguments advanced in both the appeals are being reproduced separately. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has advanced his submissions in both the appeals that has been responded to by Mr. Amit Singh in FA/426/2014 related to the claim as against the New India Assurance Company and by Mr. Madhurendra Kumar on behalf of the National Insurance Company in Appeal No. 427 of 2014.

FA/426/2014      

3.       The Complainant/Appellant is a Public Limited Company dealing with the manufacturing, sales and purchase of various products like sponge irons, ingots, billets, rolled products, ferrous alloys, power sector, etc.

4.       The Complainant obtained an insurance policy under the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy for stock of coal and iron ore to secure it against spontaneous combustion, earthquake (fire and shock) for an insured sum of Rs.10,00,00,000/- from the New India Assurance Company, Raipur. The duration of the policy was from 08.08.2009 to 07.08.2010.

5.       It is the case of the Complainant that on 26.05.2010 during the pendency and duration of the said policy, the coal stock stored outside the shed of the plant caught fire that was observed by Mr. D.D. Singh, the security in-charge of the Complainant’s factory. All efforts were made to control the fire that had witnessed flames but were unable to contain the same resulting in a huge loss of two stakes of coal (B-Grade). According to the Complainant, intimation of the same was given to the Insurance Company on 31.05.2010 and upon receipt of such information according to the Appellant a preliminary surveyor namely Mr. Hitesh Chitalia came for inspection and survey. This fact of the appointment of Mr. Chitalia as a preliminary surveyor by the New India Assurance Company has been vehemently denied and it has been urged that there is no evidence on record to establish that Mr. Chitalia had been appointed as a preliminary surveyor by the New India Assurance Company.

6.       It may be pointed out that Mr. Chitalia was a preliminary surveyor appointed by the National Insurance Company and to that extent there is no dispute that Mr. Chitalia had been instructed by the National Insurance Company who according to the Complainant/Appellant in the present case had also been authorised by the New India Assurance Company to conduct the survey on their behalf as well. It is this fact which has been denied by the New India Assurance Company and the learned Counsel has urged that there cannot be any deemed appointment of a preliminary surveyor nor Mr. Chitalia had been appointed by the New India Assurance Company. In fact, his own statement that he had been instructed to survey on behalf of New India Assurance Company is incorrect and without any basis.

7.       In due course of time, a final surveyor was also appointed namely Mr. T. S. Tuteja who submitted his report dated 13.09.2010 clearly stating that neither any fire flames were witnessed nor there was any material available at the site for inspection for assessing the loss, and therefore a status report was submitted to the Insurance Company that since the loss could not be assessed the status report was being submitted accordingly. The Insurance Company did not take any decision or repudiate the claim as there was no assessment which was reported to be almost impossible in view of the status report of the surveyor. In effect, the Insurance Company took a stand that no incidence of spontaneous combustion had taken place nor was it proved and the entire claim was inadmissible inasmuch as the Appellant Company failed to provide any evidence about the incident worth acceptance.

8.       The report of the surveyor was also taken into account and ultimately the State Commission after assessing the arguments and the documents on record came to the conclusion that neither the relevant documents were provided nor Mr. Hitesh Chitalia had been appointed as a preliminary surveyor by the New India Assurance Company, and even otherwise even if it is presumed that he was appointed, he had only given a status report and was not competent to assess the loss. The State Commission discussed the impact of several judgements and then concluded in paragraph 29 as follows.

“29. Looking to the Surveyor’s Report, it appears that the complainant could not give any clarification asked by the Surveyor when the Surveyor reached to the place of occurrence. It also appears that the complainant had suppressed the material facts regarding the incident and loss suffered by him, therefore, the report of the Surveyor, is reliable and acceptable, On the basis of Surveyor’s Report, the complainant could not establish his case beyond doubt and the complainant has not been able to prove that he has suffered loss due to spontaneous combustion of coal, therefore, the Ops (Insurance Company) has rightly denied the claim of the complainant and complainant is not entitled for getting any compensation from the Insurance Company.”

9.       Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the status survey report submitted by Mr. Chitalia sufficiently demonstrated the factum of the coal having caught fire due to spontaneous combustion. It is also submitted that the Insurance Company itself delayed the inspection in-spite of a prompt information given whereafter a forensic examination was also carried out with regard to the status of the damaged coal by the Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research, Bilaspur unit. Learned Counsel also submitted that the assessment of the quantum of the loss, all documents including stock statements as well as measurement and all possible information was tendered but neither the surveyor has taken the same into account who arrived much late after almost 20 days of the incident and therefore in view of the preliminary survey report of Mr. Chitalia, the claim coupled with the information tendered deserves to be accepted. It is also submitted that a legal notice was also given to the Insurance Company on 22.11.2011 but of no avail and no action was taken nor any intimation was given with regard to the claim made by the Complainant. It is in these circumstances that the complaint was filed to which there was no effective response was given by the Insurance Company nor was there any material contained in the surveyor’s report, yet the State Commission has proceeded to reject the complaint on erroneous considerations. It is urged that the evidence with regard to the burning of the coal and spontaneous combustion has not been appreciated correctly by the State Commission and the conclusions have been drawn without adverting to the material on record. It is also submitted that Mr. Chitalia had also been cross-examined through an affidavit who had given his answers before the State Commission yet the same has also not been taken into consideration by the State Commission hence the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

10.     It is submitted by the learned Counsel that the appointment of the final surveyor that took about 20 days was in violation of the IRDA (Protection of Policyholders’ Interests) Regulations, 2002 which stipulates that a surveyor should be appointed within 72 hours. Not only this, the final survey was conducted after almost a month and all papers were provided for as desired by the surveyor.

11.     It is also urged that the coal quantity to the tune of approximately 3000 metric tons was lost. It is further submitted that the company had also utilised the burnt coal is without any basis as it was done with information to the surveyor and the Insurance Company, and hence the order deserves to be set aside.

12.     Responding to the aforesaid submissions Mr. Amit Singh, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company urged that the Complainant could not provide any evidence worth the name to establish spontaneous combustion and any test report obtained by the Complainant regarding chemical analysis from any source or from the Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research nowhere establishes or confirms the factum of spontaneous combustion being the cause of fire.

13.     It is urged that the Complainant began by claiming a loss of almost Rs.1,00,00,000/- and then enhanced it to Rs.3,69,36,000/- vide letter dated 09.06.2010 which was a quantity of 8000 metric tons. The claim in the said letter was contrary to the claim form that was initially submitted and the document relied on by the Complainant given by Mr. Chitalia on 20.01.2011. The quantity therein mentioned was 3000 metric tons but according to the Complainant they had agreed for a much lesser amount of Rs.19,00,000/- to Rs.20,00,000/- which is evident from their own admission in the mail dated 31.01.2011. It is urged that all these transactions in tandem with Mr. Hitesh Chitalia clearly indicates this huge variation in the quantum and the claim had different unexplained levels unsupported by any document. Thus, the volume and the quantum of the loss on account of these conflicting statements of claim by the Complainant establishes that in fact there was neither any spontaneous combustion nor was there any actual loss of coal to the extent as claimed by the Appellant. In effect Mr. Amit Singh urges that this claim has been rightly found to be wanting in evidence and therefore the complaint has rightly being rejected by the State Commission that does not call for any interference.

14.     Having heard learned Counsel for the parties. The intimation given by the Appellant to the Insurance Company according to the Appellant itself was sent on 31.05.2010 after 5 days of the incident. The letter is extracted herein under:

“                                                        Dt: 31.05.2010

To,

The Senior Divisonal Manager

New India Assurance Co. Ltd.

Divisional Office,

Madina Building Jail Road

Raipur (C.G.)

Dear Sir,

Sub: Fire Loss Claim at Coal Storage Yard damage of High FC Coal-reg. Policy no. 450300/11/09/11/00000336 period 08^th Aug’2009 to 7^th Aug’2010.

This is to intimate to you that a huge loss due to the fire (Sponteneous combustion) occurred on dt. 26^th May, 2010 to continue on till date at coal storage yard in our Plant (Siltara). We have started immediate steps to extinguish the fire in meanwhile you are requested to depute the surveyor for assign the loss.

Thanking you,

Your Faithfully,

For:SKS ISPAT & POWER LIMITED

RANJAY TIWARI

SR. MANAGER (F & A)”

15.     There is nothing on record to demonstrate that any information was sent prior to this to the Insurance Company. The letter is after 5 days of the incident. There is no explanation as to why it was not informed promptly.

16.     One of the major disputed issues is that the Appellant claims that a preliminary surveyor namely, Mr. Hitesh K Chitalia had been entrusted by the New India Assurance Company to carry out the survey who visited the site on 26.05.2010 and 28.05.2010. On inspection of the premises and after taking photographs, a status report was tendered by him on 28.05.2010. The said status report records that the visit was made as per the instructions of the Senior Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company. This fact has been denied by the Insurance Company clearly stating that an information was given to the company only after 31.05.2010.  In paragraph 5 of the written statement, it has been categorically averred as follows:

“5. As to paras 6 and 7 – It is denied that the opp. party number 4 had deputed Shri H. Chitalia for preliminary survey. As submitted earlier no immediate intimation was given to this opp. party, question of deputing any preliminary surveyor, therefore did not arise. It is further denied that the said preliminary surveyor Shri Chitalia had accepted the loss of coal to the extent of about three thousand metric tons due to spontaneous combustion. The fact is that the complainant had approached. The National Insurance Co. for the processing and settlement of alleged loss of coal; and the National Insurance Co. had disputed Shri Chitalia for preliminary survey. But it is pertinent to mention here that since the said preliminary surveyor Shri Chitalia was not deputed by the opp. party no. 4, his report, if any, was not binding on these opp. parties. In this regard it is further submitted that even otherwise the job of preliminary surveyor was not to assess the amount of loss but to prima-facie ascertain the probable cause or nature of damage. It is in fact the final surveyor who assesses the exact amount of loss after thorough inspection of damaged material. But in the present case Shri Tuteja, could not find any trace of fire flame or the damaged stock during his survey.

          It is further denied that all the relevant papers and the documents were delivered in time, to Shri Tuteja or any preliminary surveyor for processing and settling the claim. The documents as annexure C-5 to C-12, mentioned in para 7 of the complaint are false and fabricated and are self-serving hence should be put to strict proof as per law.”

17.     No evidence was adduced by the appellant to contradict the aforesaid position in the evidence affidavit filed by the Insurance Company. The evidence affidavit of the Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company deposes in paragraph 4 as follows:

“4. That I say and deny that the opp. party number 4 had deputed Shri H. Chitalia for preliminary survey. As submitted earlier no immediate intimation was given to this opp. Party, question of deputing any preliminary surveyor, therefore did not arise. I further deny that the said preliminary surveyor Shri Chitalia had accepted the loss of coal to the extent of about three thousand metric tons due to spontaneous combustion. The fact is that the complainant had approached the National Insurance Co. for the processing and settlement of alleged loss of coal; and the National Insurance Co. had deputed Shri Chitalia for preliminary survey; and the complainant has deliberately not produced the said preliminary survey report to suppress this fact. And since the said preliminary surveyor Shri Chitalia was not deputed by the opp. party no. 4, his report, if any, was not binding on these opp. parties. In this regard it is further submitted that even otherwise the job of preliminary surveyor was not to assess the amount of loss but to prima-facie ascertain the probable cause or nature of damage. It is in fact the final surveyor who assesses the exact amount of loss after thorough inspection of damaged material. But in the present case Shri Tuteja, could not find any trace of fire flame or the damaged stock during his survey.

I further deny that all the relevant papers and the documents were delivered in time, to Shri Tuteja or any preliminary surveyor for processing and settling the claim. The documents as annexure C-5 to C-12, mentioned in para 7 of the complaint, are false and fabricated and are self-serving.”

18.     The aforesaid stand of the New India Assurance Company stood established after the interrogatories were served on Mr. Chitalia which was allowed by the State Commission. The questionnaire dated 11.01.2013 is as follows:

“QUESTIONAIRE FOR SHRI HITESH H. CHITALIA,

R/O BESIDE PUNJAB ENGG, WORKS, NEAR PATIDAR BHAWAN, FAFADIH, TIMBER MARKET, RAIPUR (C.G.)

QUESTION NO. 1: Whether or not complainant had suffered loss of two stakes of coal (B grade) situated at complainant factory on 26-05-2010?

QUESTION NO. 2: Whether or not you had conducted preliminary survey and inspected the spot where loss had occurred?

QUESTION NO. 3: Whether or not you had submitted your preliminary survey report to office of Opposite Party No. 4? Kindly provide date of submission of report and copy of preliminary survey report.

QUESTION NO. 4: Whether or not you had taken written consent of total and actual loss of coal (B grade) from Complainant?”       

19.     The reply to the said questionnaire has been given by Mr. Chitalia and the said reply is very revealing inasmuch as Mr. Chitalia admitted having been appointed by the Divisional Office of the National Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai to conduct the preliminary survey. He therefore arrived for the survey but later on he came to know that the Divisional Office of New India Assurance had issued a policy and on contacting the Divisional Office at Raipur, he submitted a report to the New India Assurance Company on verbal instructions. The reply of Mr. Chitalia is extracted herein under:

“REPLY OF QUESTIONAIRE DATED-11-01-2013 ON AFFIDAVIT FILED BY COMPLAINANT

I, Hitesh S/o __Himmat__ Chitalia, Insurance Surveyor, Loss Assessor & Valuer, License No. SLA/12589, Resident of Beside Punjab Engg. Works, Near Patidar Bhawan, Fafadih, Timber Market, Raipur, do hereby solemnly affirm, state and submit as under:-

1. Answer to Question No. 1- Yes, it is correct to say that SKS Ispat & Power Ltd had suffered loss of two stakes of Coal inside their premises (factory) situated at Urla on 26-05-2010 but I had not verified grade of coal as it was preliminary survey.
2. Answer to Question No. 2- Yes, I have conducted the preliminary survey and also inspected the spot of occurrence where loss has occurred.

Actually, I was instructed by DO-2 Mumbai of National Insurance Co. Ltd. to conduct preliminary survey for the aforesaid loss but later on 1 came to know the fact that D.O.-1, New India Assurance, Raipur had also issued policy on coming to know about this fact, I contacted D.O-1, New India Assurance, Raipur and on their verbal instruction I submitted my report to them also.

3. Answer to Question No. 3- Yes, I had submitted my preliminary survey report to New India Assurance Co. ltd, DO-1, Raipur No. Fire/740 DW, dated-28-05-2010 on 14-06-2010. Copy of the said Report is enclosed herewith this Affidavit as Annexure-H-1.
4. Answer to Question No. 4- I had taken consent for the extent of loss of coal as per instructions received from Final Surveyor of National Insurance Co. Ltd., DO-2, Fort, Mumbai. The Actual assessment of loss or damage is actually the job of final surveyor subject to admissibility under the policy. It is tentative (Not exact)

Hence this Affidavit.

                                                                      VERIFICATION

              I, Hitesh S/o   Himmat_Chitalia, Resident of Beside Punjab Engg. Works, Near Patidar Bhawan, Fafadih, Timber Market, Raipur (C.G.), do hereby verify and affirm that the contents this affidavit from Para 1 to Para 4 are true and correct the best of my personal knowledge and belief, no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein, which I rely upon and hence signed this _12_ day of April, 2013 at Raipur (C.G.)”     

The reply referred to above is in answer to question no. 2.

20.     From a perusal of the aforesaid answer given by Mr. Chitalia, it is now established that there were no written instructions at all to Mr. Chitalia by New India Assurance Company and any such claim of instruction has been vehemently denied by the Divisional Manager in the evidence affidavit referred to above. The interrogatories answered by Mr. Chitalia therefore clearly indicates that he has given an explanation that he himself had contacted the Divisional Officer after having been appointed by the National Insurance Company after coming to know of another policy. There is no evidence to corroborate the alleged oral instruction. He also states that he had verbal instructions to submit a report but he nowhere supports his appointment as preliminary surveyor by the New India Assurance Company. The recital therefore contained in his status report dated 28.05.2010 that he visited as per the instructions of the New India Assurance Company is absolutely incorrect. Even otherwise, Mr. Chitalia has nowhere mentioned as to when and whom did he contact at the New India Assurance Company, Raipur for taking such verbal instructions and then sending the status survey report on 28.05.2010. Thus, the statement of Mr. Chitalia is full of contradictions and his assertion is un-creditworthy.

21.     To the contrary, the letter dispatched by the Appellant himself on 31.05.2010 establishes that information for the first time was given to the New India Assurance Company through the said letter only. Accordingly, the sending of a status report by Mr. Chitalia on 28.05.2010 is clearly a document which seems to have been manipulated and was not even solicited by the New India Assurance Company.

22.     There is yet another document which needs to be mentioned namely the interrogatories and questions raised on 07.11.2013 to which a reply was given by Mr. Chitalia on 17.12.2013 and is extracted herein under:

“ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE BY ADVOCATE SHISHIR SHANDARKAR, DATED 07.11.2013 ON AFFIDAVIT

I, Hitesh S/o Himmatlal Chitalia, Insurance Surveyor, Loss, Assessor & Valuer, License No. SLA/12589, Resident, Near Punjab Engg. Works, Near Patidar Bhawan, Fafadih, Timber Market, Raipur, do hereby solemnly affirm, state and submit as under:-

1. Reply to Question No. 1- That the then Divisional Manager, Raipur Office-I of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. verbally through telephonic conversation had appointed me on 26-05-2010, to conduct the preliminary survey on behalf of the company. Generally, Insurer appoint Preliminary survey verbally, hence no need of written instructions. Intimation give over phone on 26-5-10, and written submitted afterwards by Insured.
2. Reply to Question No. 2- That I was appointed as the Preliminary Surveyor on behalf of the company to conduct preliminary survey, which I did from 26-05-10 to 28-5-10, thus there was no further need and requirement on my part to me to visit the spot any further after 28-5-10.
3. Reply to Question No. 3- No, I have physically verified for appox. Extent of stock of coal. Documentary proof is not provided by Insured. It is to taken during final survey.
4. Reply to Question No. 4- Yes, it is fact that to minimize the loss Insured suggested to utilize the Affected Coal which is better than to keep it in same burning state, which cause increase of loss further.
5. Reply to Question No. 5 & 6- That as stated earlier, after being duly authorized by the then Divisional Manager, Raipur Office-I of the company to do the preliminary survey, I had duly conducted the survey and had submitted the reports to the company individually. Both report prepared separately, not the same report forwarded.
6. Reply to Question No. 7- That being appointed as Preliminary Surveyor, I had ascertained the proximate cause of loss and approximate loss of coal but at no point of time had I assessed the actual loss and it is need of Insurer to share rough idea of loss from Preliminary Surveyor, to proceed further in the claim and appointing final surveyor to other or to continue with same surveyor.
7. Reply to Question No. 8- That I had prepared my report on the basis of survey conducted by me, physical verification considering volume of coal affected, at the spot of the incident.
8. Reply to Question No. 9 & 10- That Final Surveyor Shri. T.S. Tuteja appointed by the company never contacted me with respect to the present matter, however the Final Surveyor Shri S.R. Das of National Assurance Co. had communicated with me to which I had replied accordingly. That, I being the Preliminary Surveyor, am only under an obligation and duty to submit Preliminary report to the company, which I did accordingly to the company and also to National Assurance Co.

Hence this Affidavit.

                                                                      VERIFICATION

I, Hitesh S/o   Himmat_Chitalia, Resident of near to Punjab Engg. Works, Near Patidar Bhawan, Fafadih, Timber Market, Raipur (C.G.), do hereby verify and affirm that the contents this affidavit from Para 1 to Para 8 are true and correct the best of my personal knowledge and belief, no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed therein, which I rely upon and hence sign this affidavit on 17^th day of December, 2013 at Raipur (C.G.)”     

23.     A perusal of the reply to question no. 1 again the other replies indicates the same statement that he had been verbally through telephonic conversation been appointed on 26.05.2010 to conduct the preliminary survey on behalf of the New India Assurance Company as there was no need of written instructions. This reply is again contrary to the earlier reply given by him as extracted herein above where he has stated that he had himself contacted the New India Assurance Company whereas in the present reply he talks of the Divisional Manager giving instructions on telephone and appointing him to conduct the preliminary survey. The Statement given earlier nowhere indicates any such appointment but only the submission of a report. This contradiction also therefore leaves no room for doubt that Mr. Chitalia had been taking shifting stands with regard to his status of appointment as a preliminary surveyor by the New India Assurance Company.

24.     Since, the Complainant has insisted and placed reliance on the status report/preliminary surveyor report of Mr. Chitalia dated 28.05.2010, the same is extracted herein under:

“STATUS SURVEY REPORT

(WITHOUT PREJUDICE)

No. FIRE//740                                     Date-28/05/2010

To,

The Sr. Div. Manager,

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.,

D.O., RAIPUR

SUBJECT:     Fire claim on 26/05/2010 at Premises of M/s. S.K.S. Ispat & Power Ltd., Industrial Area Phase 2, Siltara, Raipur (CG) under Std. Fire Policy.

Sir,

          As per your Instructions, I have visited the premises of M/s. S K S Ispat & Power Ltd. Siltara, Phase 2, Raipur, on 26/05/2010 to 28/05/2009 continuously, and inspected the premises and taken photographs at various angles & interrogated the matter from Insured, and demanded some required documents and issuing this status report w/o prejudice as per my physical verification as under:

INSURER/UNDERWRITER  : The New India Assurance Co.  

                                                                     Ltd., D.O.1, Raipur (CG)

                             INSURED                         : M/s. S K S Ispat & Power Ltd.,

Siltara Ind. Estate, Phase 2, 18^th Milestone, Bilaspur Road, Raipur.

                             POLICY NO.                     : -

                             DATE OF OCCURRENCE     : -

TYPE OF POLICY               : Std. Fire Policy.

PARTICULARS OF

COVERAGE                      : To check

SUBJECT MATTER             : Stock of coal only.

CIRCUMSTANCES & CAUSE OF LOSS:

As per statement of Security In-charge Mr. D D Singh. It observed fire flames suddenly in night of 25/5/2010 i.e. 26/5/2010 fire in the coal stake of coal stored in premises of Insured at Outside shed of the plant, then immediately informed to other senior concerned persons and called fire brigade from Raipur, which is far from factory, meanwhile it spreaded and Uncontrolled and heavy smokes after flames coming out from two major stakes of Coal and Insured started fire extinguishing operation from own sources and it informed to Insurer afterwards. I reached about 2 PM and observed fire flames from two major heaps of coal, taken photos and sample of Coal of Affected and Unaffected Coal of same heap. I have verified stock as on date of occurrence and measured affected heaps (Stakes).

Looking to nature and extent of damages cause of the loss-Fire due to Spontaneous Combustion is believing and damages appeared fresh and natural.

NATURE & EXTENT OF DAMAGE:

It is approx.. 3000 to 3500 M Ton Coal affected due to the occurrence as per prima facia observations.

LOSS ASSESSMENT:

Approx. Insurer’s Liability is Rs. 19 to 20 Lac at this stage. It may increase, As fire is not controlled upto 28/5/2010.

CONCLUSION:

In my opinion, it is a genuine claim of Fire due to Spontaneous Combustion during Night, Resulted in chain (Chemical) reaction Captured by two stakes of Coal inside Insured’s Plant in open and Insured suffered loss as it burnt partially.

25.     His voluntary act of tendering any report for the New India Assurance Company is an unilateral paperwork that appears to be an attempt designed to render some sort of advantage to the claimant. This conduct of Mr. Chitalia, given the stand of the Insurance Company which stands confirmed with the material on record, deserves to be censured as he appears to have imposed himself in this transaction for which he was unauthorised. Consequently, his participation that was self-sponsored and his preliminary survey report is valueless and deserves to be discarded. His attempt to define the loss and make an offer of settlement is a further indication of overstepping his authority and an attempt of clear overreach for which there is no justification. It is therefore logical that the final surveyor Mr. Tuteja neither referred to his alleged report nor did he contact Mr. Chitalia as admitted by him in his own statement. This therefore further confirms the stand of the Insurance company that Mr. Chitalia was neither contacted nor entrusted by it to conduct any survey.

26.     The aforesaid report therefore has to be discounted on the basis of what has been observed above.  Particularly, the fact that there is a clear denial by the New India Assurance Company of having appointed him as a preliminary surveyor.  Secondly, there is no authorization from the New India Assurance Company to Mr. Chitalia who made a request for acceptance for the quantity of loss for settling the claim in the letter dated 20.01.2011.  From a perusal of the said letter, it is also evident that the same is neither marked to the New India Assurance Company or the final surveyor Mr. Tuteja.  Thus, any acceptance of the said proposal as alleged by the Complainant which has been appended as ‘Annexure P-16’ is of no value.

27.     It is therefore evident that in all probability Mr. Chitalia had somehow the other generated these documents in order to create an advantage in favour of Appellant.  The State Commission therefore has not committed any error in dismissing the complaint as neither the alleged incident of spontaneous combustion has been established by any document nor the procedure as claimed by the Appellant has been able to substantiate by any evidence as discussed herein above.  It is not understood as to how Mr. Chitalia arrived at the conclusion that there is a spontaneous combustion.  The sample testing nowhere confirms either the spontaneous combustion theory set-up by the Complainant or the loss suffered.  The entire material had already been removed and no fire was either reflected and witnessed when the final surveyor Mr. Tuteja carried out the survey.  On an overall analysis of the arguments advanced and the grounds taken, no error in the impugned order of the State Commission could be established.  The appeal does not raise any question of law or fact so as to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company. The appeal therefore lacks merit and is therefore, dismissed.

FIRST APPEAL NO. 427 OF 2014

1.       This Appeal arises out of a claim of Insurance in respect of an alleged loss of Rs.62,32,950/- caused by destruction of coal due to spontaneous combustion.  The background of the incident is the same as indicated in First Appeal No.426/2014. In the present case, Mr. Chitalia was appointed as a preliminary surveyor by the National Insurance Company and Mr. S.R. Das was appointed the final surveyor.  The preliminary survey of Mr. Chitalia was also supplemented by a fire report mentioning spontaneous combustion. A chemical analysis report was also obtained from Chandigarh Ispat Bhumi Limited.  In this case, Mr. Chitalia tendered a letter dated 20.01.2011 calling upon the Appellant to issue an acceptance letter with regard to the quantity of loss. 

2.       The final surveyor, Mr. S.R. Das tendered a final survey report before the Insurance Company, where-after the Insurance Company issued a letter for closing the claim as withdrawn.  The Appellant sent a reply that they have not withdrawn the claim and where-after the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No.12/2001 before the Chhattisgarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission that was dismissed on 16.05.2014 giving rise to this appeal.

3.       Learned Counsel contends that there is no withdrawal of the complaint and that the burnt coal was utilized only after suggestions were received to that effect.

4.       The preliminary report submitted by Mr. Chitalia dated 15.07.2010 is extracted herein under:-

“HITESH H. CHITALIA                                                        SUVEYOR, LOSS ASSESSOR & VALUER

No. SLA/12580, Valid up to 31.3.2011

I Tax PAN NO.- ACBPC-2467Q

Service Tax No-ACBPC-2467QST001

Email : hiteshchilalia11@yahoo.com 

STATUS SURVEY REPORT

(WITHOUT PREJUDICE)

No. FIRE//185                                                                  Date- 15/07/2010

To,

THE Sr. Div. Manager,

National Insurance Co. Ltd.,

D.O.2, MUMBAI

SUBJECT: Fire claim on 26/05/2010 at Premises of M/S.S.K.S. Ispat & Power

Ltd., Industrial Area Phase 2, Siltara, Raipur (CG) under Std. Fire Policy.

Sir,

An per your Instructions, I have visited the premises of M/s. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd. Sillara, Phase 2, Raipur, on 26/05/2010 to 28.05/2009 continuously, and inspected the promises and taken photographs at various angles & interrogated the matter from Insured, and demanded some required documents and issuing this status report w/o prejudice as per my physical verification as under:

INSURER/UNDERWRITER                     : National Insurance  Co. Ltd., D.O.2,

             Mumbai (MS)

INSURED                                              : M/s. SKS Ispat & Power Ltd.,

              Siltara Ind. Estate, Phase 2,

18^th Milestone, Bilaspur Road.

Raipur,

POLICY No.                                          : 260200/11/10/3300000081

DATE OF OCCURRENCE                      : 26/05/2010

TYPE OF POLICY                                 : Std. Fire Policy.

PARTICULARS OF COVERAGE            : To check

SUBJECT MATTER                               : Stock of Coal only.

CIRCUMSTANCES & CAUSE OF LOSS:

As per statement of Security In-charge Mr. D.D. Singh, It observed fire Flames suddenly in night of 25/5/2010 i.e. 26/5/2010 fire in the Coal stake of coal stored in premises of Insured at Outside shed of the plant, then immediately informed to other senior concerned persons and, called fire brigade from Raipur, which is far from factory, meanwhile it spreaded and Uncontrolled and heavy smokes after flames coming out from two major stakes of Coal and Insured started fire extinguishing operation from own sources and it informed to Insurer afterwards.

I reached about 2 PM and observed fire flames from two major heaps of Coal, taken photos and sample Of Coal of Affected and Unaffected Coal of same heap. I have verified stock As on date of occurance and measured affected heaps (Stakes).

Looking to nature and extent of damages cause of the loss - Fire due to Sponteneous Combustion is believing and damages appeared fresh and natural.

NATURE & EXTENT OF DAMAGE :

It is appox. 3000 to 3500 M Ton Coal affected due to the occurance as Per prima facia observations.

LOSS ASSESSMENT :

Approx. Insurer's Liability is Rs. 19 to 20 Lac at this stage. It may increase, As fire is not controlled upto 28/5/2010.

Note :

1.         It is Individual liability of Insurer (As loss is more than this And it has to share proportionately with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. DO1, Raipur.

2.         I have taken two samples of Affected Coal and one sample of Unaffected Coal from involved stake of Coal and analised it From The Central Institute of Mining & Fuel Research, Bilaspur Unit, 27 Kholi Chowk, Vikas nagar, Bilaspur (CG) and its report obtained and same enclosed for reference of extent of damages in terms of change in of Moisture, Ash and GCV of Coal. I have paid fees which is to be reimburse in my fee bill attached.

CONCLUSION :

In my opinion it is a genuine claim of Fire due to Sponteneous Combustion during light, Resulted in chain (Chemical) reaction Captured by two stakes of Coal inside Insured's Plant in open and Insured suffered loss as it burnt partially.

Encl.:    Stork as on date of occurance. SF Bill

Original Report of Analysis of Coal of CTMFR, Bilaspur”

5.       The final surveyor, Mr. S.R. Das dispatched letters on 01.12.2010 that was replied to by the preliminary surveyor followed by the letter dated 08.12.2010. He also wrote a letter to the Senior Divisional Manager on 30.12.2010.  A letter was sent to the Appellant on 14.02.2011 and then again on 10.03.2011.  This was followed by the final report submitted by him on 21.03.2011 which is extracted herein under:-  

“S.R. DAS                                                                                                    CE-179

B.Sc.(Cal) B.M.E. (Jad), F.I.E. (India)                                                           Salt Lake City

A.M.I.E.T. (London)                                                                                 Kolkata -700064

Chartered Engineer                                                                                   INDIA

Project Advisor, Surveyor, Loss Assessor                         Telephone: +91(33)23374692 (PBX)

Consultant, Valuer                                                                Fax: +91(33)23210179 (Auto)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------­­­

                                                                                                                                                                 Dated: 21^st March, 2011

                                                                                                                                                                       Our Ref: 79/377/17

PRIVILEGED FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE UNDERWRITER AND THEIR LEGAL ADVISORS ONLY

Sub:  Final Survey Report for the claim of Rs.3.69 Crore due to alleged damage to High F.C. Coal in fire on Spontaneous Combustion at Coal Storage Yard on 26.05.2010

A/C: M/s. S K S ISPAT & POWER LIMITED (RAIPUR)

POLICY NO.: 260 200/11/10/3300000081

With reference to the above, the Chief Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Head Office, Kolkata on 03.06.2010 advised me to carry out the survey and assessment of the above loss and accordingly, I have visited the works of insured Mr. S.K.S. Ispat & Power Limited, Siltara, Industrial Area, Plase-2, Bilasper Road, Raipur (CG) on and from 05.06.2010 to 09.06.2010 followed by the subsequent 2^nd visit for 1-days on 28-29.09.2010 for the purpose of survey enquiry and verification of loss alleged to have been caused due to loss of stock of coal as a result of alleged burning of the same due to spontaneous combustion on 26.05.2010.

And accordingly my survey report with assessment of loss is given as under.

01.      NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE INSURED

M/S. S.K.S. Ispat & Power Limited

Sitara Industrial Growth Centre

Plaase-1, 18^th Mile Stone

Bilasper Road

Dist. Raipur-498111

Chhattisgarh.

02.      NAME ANTY ADDRESS OF THE UNDERWRITER

National Insurance Co. Limited

Mumbai Division : 260 200

First Floor, Sterling Cenema Building

65, Murzban Street

FORT, Mumbai – 400 001.

03.      POLICY PARTICLARS

a)       Policy No.                         : 260200/11/10/3300000081

b)       Nature of Policy                 : Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy

                                                  (Spontaneous Combustion)

c)       Period of Cover                  : From 14.05.2010 to 13.05.2011

d)       Items Insured                             : Coal, Sponge Iron, Stores & Spares

e)       Sum Insured for loss claimed         : Rs 9,00,00,000.00

          item.

f)       Sum Insured (Total)           : Rs 14,00,00,000.00

g)       Excess                              : As applicable

04.      INRODUCTION:

My visit on 05.06.2010 for survey at the works of the insured was scheduled in consultation with Mr P.N Sajnani, Broker, Surekh Insurance broker Pvt. Limited, Raipur and Mr. Sajnani was kind to receive me at the Raipur Airport. Mr.Sajnani is a retired ex-Senior Divisional manager. New India Assurance Co. Limited and was works in Bhadodar region. C.G.

Mr. Sajnani also given me to understand that National Company Limited appointed one Mr. Hitesh H. Chitalia as their preliminary surveyor.

05. OBSERVATION/SURVEY :

Mr. P.N. Sajnani and Mr. Hitesh H. Chitalia are resident of Raipur.

A standard practice is that the final surveyors get a copy of preliminary survey report to start his work further to finish. The basic and the main object of a preliminary surveyor Is to ascertain jointly with the claimant the quantity damaged, extent and nature and the damaged materials are retained safely for physical verification of the final surveyor.

Incidentally, the property of material (coal) alleged to have been damaged here due to fire is such that coal might have quarter burnt. Half burnt, three-fourth burnt or 100% burnt to Ash (Silica Alumina. Spent oxide of iron), that is residue left at any stage is enough to know the sound stock of coal that is burnt which could be useful to find out the gross Loss.

But Mr. Chitalia was out at station and I did not have the preliminary survey report to know from where to start. Mr. Chitalia was out of station and may be back in Raipur at any moment was the understanding given to me by Mr. N.P. Sajnani.

But the above residue is a must to ascertain the Gross Loss.

My self and Mr. Sajnani left hotel for the visit to insured works for survey in the morning and after reaching the works. We first met Mr. P.P Gupta, Vice-President (Commercial) of insured who explained me in length and breadth about the phenomenon of spontaneous combustion of coal for about 15-20 minutes.

Then I wanted to know, since fire started on 26.05.2010 and to-day being 05.06.2010, the fire by then must have been extinguished leaving the burnt materials as salvage being the residue which is unusable and unsuitable for DRI (Direct Reduced Iron) process for producing sponge iron.

Mr. Gupta sent for one Mr. Ranjay Tiwari, Senior Manager (Fn. & Accounts) for my observation and verification of all aspects of loss.

In the meantime, Mr. Ranjay Tiwari came and took me to inside the factory and Mr. Sajnani left.

Mr. Tiwari, however, could not locate the burnt material and assured me to find out the same by next day.

In the meantime there was an attempt to find out the volume of burnt coal by measuring dimensions in the space. But this attempt considered futile without physical existence.

I wanted to know from Mr. Tiwari if there is a testing laboratory who carryout testing of raw materials, who might have also carried out testing of fire damaged left outs of damaged coals.

Mr. Tiwari took me to laboratory within the factory premises at a distance of about 1½ kilometres where I met one Mr. Deepak Mehta, Scientist, Senior Assistant General Manager, Quality Control who in my option is a learned man, explained the step by process to ascertain the [illegible] of Fixed Carbon, Ash and volatile material in a sample of Coal.

And obviously if we have standard sound coal at our disposal, we can quantity the stock damaged from these readings if residue in any form is available.

The crux, the crucial or the decisive point remains to have in hand the damaged weight of burnt coals of various categories as there may be and the respective samples of corresponding stacks of burnt coals.

Mr. Deepak Mehta wanted me to see him next day that is on 06.06.2010 he could be in a position to hand over the test certificates and his men may be helpful in locating the damaged stocks.

Mr. Tiwari was all along there during discussions and he was emphasized how crucial it is to have damaged coal in hand to find out the stock damaged since there was no other way out.

Thereafter we met again Mr. P.P Gupta, Vice-President, Mr. Gupta was apprised of all the progress and he was also explained that the remains of burnt stock of coal is a must to ascertain the loss. For the remains, Mr. Gupta once more asked Mr. Ranjay Tiwari, Senior Manager (Fin. & Accts.) who was also there with me, to find out the weight of damaged stock from where through analysis sound stock could be found out.

On next day on 07.06.2010 both myself and Mr. Ranjay Tiwari at about 12.30 p.m. seen Mr. Deepak Mehta in his Laboratory office, but I came to know that those test reports will take some time and in the mean time we can go and see devastating fire outside coal shed which started at about 11.30 a.m. to have a 1 hand experience we both rushed fire site but on reaching there found that the fire was by the time extinguished skilfully by the own people of insurer expeditiously without any outside contingent and having No left over.

In my opinion, this proves that the insured do have their own people to fight and to extinguish massive fire themselves without depending upon outside fire brigade services.

This in fact is the duty of the insured as the very spirit of insurance is based on the spirit that the insured should consider their insured property as there is no insurance.

And in my opinion the underwriter has covered the risk of spontaneous combustion and also the insured should provide a spontaneous extinguishing gadget to minimize the loss and any aggravation due to delay will not be covered by the policy of insurance.

However, even on 07.06.2010 no progress was there to physically verify the extant (quantity) and nature (% loss) of damage.

No trace of damaged material was found even on 3^rd day and the insured is all the time giving the assurance of getting the same, I cannot abruptly ask them to show me or I leave Raipur while on the other hand Mr. Chitalia was expected back to Raipur at any moment I have decided to stay a day more to meet Mr. Chitalia and to ask Mr. Ranjay Tiwari and Mr. Deepak Mehta to give me in written that they could not produce damaged coal for my observation and verification. Which they have given me on 09.06.2010 and the same statement (NOTE) I have communicated to Mr. Hitesh H. Chitalia vide my Registered-A/D letter No. 79/377/03 dated 30.08.2010 (Enclosure No. 07/18) under copy to Mr. P. Venkatramaiah, Deputy General Manager, Head Office, National Insurance Co. Limited Kolkata and Mr. Prasun Ray, Senior Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Limited, Mumbai Divisional Office-II. Mumbai.

Now on 09.06.2010 immediately before my departure from Raipur to Kolkata both Mr. Chitalia and Mr. P.N Sajnani came to see me along with Mr. Rajnani Tiwari, Senior Manager (F & A) to when I have informed that the insured could not produce fire damaged coal for my observation and verification.

Before my departure of Raipur to Kolkata Mr.Ranjay Tiwari handed over to me the following:

01      67 Nos.                : Photographs taken by insured and all signed by

                                            Mr. Tiwari.

02      2 Nos.                    : Fire Report of Capt. D.D. Singh, Manager Security.

03      1 Nos.                    : Statement of non-availability of damaged goods (NOTE)

                dated 09.06.2010 signed by Mr. Deepak Mehta, Senior

               Assistant General Manager Quality Control.

But this is a fallacy that none of them spoken a single word on that day that they (the insured and Mr. Chitalia) have jointly burnt out the damaged quantity of coal.

In fact to ascertain and to understand the fact, I have done the following communication:

Vide my letter no. 79/377/01 dated 21.06.2010 (Enclosure No. 03/18) written to Mr. P.V.S. Chandra Sekhar that Mr. Deepak Mehta Senior A.G.M (Q.C) on 05.06.2010 explained that the analytical result showing % of deterioration of constituents will determine the quantum of loss to from left over of materials.  But since no damaged materials left over were available, Mr. Mehta in his report (Note) dated 09.06.2010 stated that however, Quantity of Coal Burnt cannot be ascertained due to No left over of Materials.

Mr Chandra Sekhar was therefore asked to advise as how to ascertain the quantum of loss to substantiate the claim.

One copy of the report of Mr Mehta dated 09.06.2010 received by me on 09.06.2010 is enclosed (Enclosure:04/18).

On 09.06.2010, the insured submitted their Claim Intimation Letter dated 09.06.2010 for Rs.3,69,36.000,00 (Enclosure: 05/18).

Vide 30^th May 2010, Mr. Hitesh H. Chitalia given his assessment at Rs.18.00 to Rs.20.00 lac Saying on 26th May at about 2 P.M. Weighment of coal is under progress as it needs to extinguish first. Exact assessment after Final Weighment. Meanwhile, insured instructed to arrange more powerful and effective operation for fire to extinguish as it is not controlled upto 30th May morning as it is under progress. One copy of report dated 30.05.2010 is enclosed (Enclosure No.06/18).

Vide my letter no 79/377/03 dated 30.08.2010 (Enclosure No. 07/18) I had written to Mr. Chitalia to send me jointly agreed assessed report if any.

On 29.09.2010 there was a discussion at Simran Heritage at Raipur where respected Mr R.B.V. Raghab Rao, Mr. P.N. Sajnani and Mr. Ranjay Tiwari was present. But, there was no jointly agreed assessed report to establish the quantum of damaged stock agreed by both and assessment made on the basis of the same.

Vide my letter no. 79/377/04 dated 01.10.2010 (Enclosure No. 08/18) I have asked Mr. Chitalia to send me Claim No. with a copy of claim form filled in by New India as final Surveyor of New India. There was no reply.

Vide my letter no. 79/377/07 dated 20.10.2010 (Enclosure No. 09/18) I have written my letter to Mr. P.V.S chandra Sekhar as I am submitting my final survey report as in my opinion your underwriter is not liable for compensation of your claim.

On 29.10.2010 vide courier No. 10/28.10 65972673 I have received a report from Mr. Deepak Mehta dated same as before as 09.06.2010 but giving an absolutely different version which I have found as misrepresentation, Contradictory and after thought for which the following letter were to be exchanged.

01.      My letter no. 79/377/07 dated 01.12.2010 (Enclosure No. 10/18)

02.      My letter no.79/377/08 dated 08.12.2010 (Enclosure No. 11/18)

03.      Mr Hitesh H. Chitalia letter dated 10.12.2010 (Enclosure No. 12/18

This is the letter which is contradictory and after thought to his report dated 30.05.2010 (Enclosure No. 06/18)

04.      My letter no. 79/377/09 dated 30.12.2010 to Mr. P.Ray Senior Divisional Manager (Enclosure No. 13/18) showing systematic clarification.

05.      My letter no. 79/377310 dated 10.01.2011 to Mr. Chatalia (Enclosure No. 14/18) asking for quantity of damaged coal.

06.      My letter no 79/377/11 dated 27.01.2011 to Mr. Gopal garg, General Manager (F & A) (15 A) & letter no. SKS /Ins/2010-11/DRS dated 16.11.2010 (15B) both (Enclosure (15A & 15B 18).

07.      Mr.Hetesh H. Chitalia letter dated 01.02.20121 with his draft report dated 28.09.2010 along with acceptance by the insured from their amount of Claim intimation of Rs.3,69,36,000.00 to acceptance of Rs. 44,21,200.00 with quantity burnt out as gross loss of 3.000 MT (Enclosure No: 16/18).

08.     My letter no. 79/377/13 dated 14.02.0211 addressed to Mr. Garg (Enclosure No. 17/18) asking for reconciliation to establish their claim.

09.      My letter no. 79/377/15 dated 10.03.2011 addressed to Mr. garg (Enclosure No.18/18) informing him that my final survey report is being submitted as claim is not established.

06. PROBABLE CAUSE OF FIRE/LOSS:

There was a probability of fire due to spontaneous combustion of coal but as per the above discussions the loss claimed by the insured is not established.

07 ASSESSMENT & SALVAGE :

Assessment has been done purely on the basis of jointly agreed by the insured and the preliminary surveyor for damaged quantity of coal, on the basis of measurement shown by preliminary surveyor in the space (Volume) occupied by Trapezoidal content of coal, Bulk- density as ascertained by tipper volume, is to actual weight found by weighing in weighbridge, rate per unit cost of coal as at godown of the insured, value at risk from the documents produced by the insured, only that part of heat value in Kilo-Calorie of which is lost as per laboratory analysis since the insured consumed the left outs etc. and accordingly the actual computation of loss is shown as under:

01.      Volume occupied by coal     : 3,484 cu. Mtr.

02.      Bulk Density of coal            : 0.8797 M.T/Cu.m :

03.      Total calculated weight of coal : 3065 MT

04.      Calculated weight after correction of 5% of the corners   : 2911 MT

05.      After further correction the actual weight considered is     : 2900 MT

06.      Calorific value of fresh coat (left out) : 5, 540 KCAL/Kg.

07.      Average Calorific value of burnt coal (left outs) : 1,557 KCAL/Kg.

08.      From the above % loss is : 5,540-1557 =5540

09.      Hence the equivalent coal value loss is : 72% of 2,900 MT =2,085 MT

10.      The landed cost of coal as ascertained from the documents produced by the insured is : Rs. 2,000 MT.

Therefore the Gross Assessed Loss                    =       Rs. 41,70,000.00

Less: Depreciation                                                                Nil

Less: Salvage                                                                      Nil

Less: Underinsurance                                                         Nil

Less: Excess                                                                 Rs. 10,000.00

Therefore the Net assessed loss is Rs. 41, 60,000.00 (Rupees forty one lakh sixty thousand only.

LIABILITY :

After long and though investigation, I have written my letter no. 79/377/13 dated 14.02.2011 to Mr. Gopal Garg, General Manager (F & A), M/s S.K.S Ispat & power Limited, Raipur (Enclosure No. 17/18) asking clarification showing why their claim should not be repudiated. The time limit was 2-weeks but even after 4-weeks Mr. Garg could not give any clarification.

I have therefore vide my letter no. 79/377/15 dated 10.03.2011 written to Mr. Garg that this is found that even within a period of 4-weeks Mr.Garg could not substantiated their claim and in my opinion on the basis of various documents referred to in my letter dated 14.02.2011 their claim is not established and therefore, I am not able consider for acceptance of liability by the underwriter.

I am, however, accordingly, submitting my report with the assessment of loss for the consideration of the underwriter as per the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance.

This report is issued without prejudice.

S.R. DAS

                                                                                                                       (Surveyor)”

6.       A perusal of both these reports would indicate that the final surveyor made all attempts to clarify each and every issue and then recommended that no claim has been established.

7.       The State Commission after quoting Condition No. 06 of the Policy and Judgments in respect thereof in paragraph 30 recorded the following:-       

30. Looking to the Surveyor's Report, it appears that the complainant could not give any clarification asked by the Surveyor when the Surveyor reached to the place of occurrence. It also appears that the complainant had suppressed the material facts regarding the incident and loss suffered by him, therefore, the report of the Surveyor, is reliable and acceptable, On the basis of Surveyor's Report, the complainant could not establish his case beyond doubt and the complainant has not been able to prove that he has suffered loss due to spontaneous combustion of coal, therefore, the OPs (Insurance Company) has rightly denied the claim of the complainant and complainant is not entitled for getting any compensation from the Insurance Company.”

   8.    It is therefore evident that the aforesaid finding was recorded and which has been preceded by assessment of the documents from the Paragraph 12 onwards of the impugned order.  The State Commission also came to the conclusion that the preliminary surveyor had no authority to assess the loss and he had travelled beyond the task entrusted to him.

9.       It is also evident from the facts narrated that a shifting stand has been taken by the Complainant regarding the claim of the loss which is at variance as is also evident from the facts of the other Appeal No.426/2014. The variance of the claim in the claim form, the proposals that were made for settlement by the preliminary surveyor and there being no material available for assessment of the loss by the final surveyor therefore disentitles the appellant from receiving any claim.  The Complainant therefore having failed to establish the claim on any cogent material, the State Commission is not committed any error in dismissing the complaint.

10.     Accordingly, this Appeal is also dismissed as no grounds are made out for interfering with the impugned order.