By ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER.<br /> <br /> The complainant has filed this complaint for realization of Rs.2,61,341/- from the opp.party as insurance benefit.<br /> <br /> The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows:<br /> The complainant was conducting a grocer's shop, a General Merchant shop and a Ration shop under the name and style of M/s Krishna Traders with the Reg.No.ARD-253/92. The shop was insured with the opp.party. On the night of 8.8.2002 the article in the shop, the furniture and everything were burned due to Electric short circuit or something like that. On 9.8.2002 itself the matter was intimated to Error Police Station for immediate action. The police had visited the shop on 9.8.2002 and a mahazar was prepared. On 9.8.2002 itself the matter was informed to Mr. Sajan, the Field Officer of the counter petitioners company. Again the same was informed to the Fire Force also on 9.8.2002. One Mr. G. Renadev was appointed by the Counter Petitioner for assessing the loss incurred to the complainant and in order to minimize the amount claimed, the surveyor Mr. Renadev reported that the damage would not have occurred due to electric short circuit. His allegation was that no supporting document was produced. The complainant had produced all the supporting documents to substantiate his claim. The counter petitioners are not willing to make good the loss of the complainant. The only possibility of this fire would have been due to electric short circuit. There was a total loss of Rs.2,61,341/-. The counter petitioner prolonged the matter by giving promise that the matter will be settled. So far they have not settled the matter and hence the complainant for getting relief.<br /> <br /> Opp.party filed version contending that inter alia the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The opp.party had issued a shopkeepers insurance policy to the complainant for a period from 11.8.2001 to 10.8.2002. The complainant on 12.8.2002 intimated a claim before this opp.party stating that the provisions and stationery goods kept in the insured provision store of the complainant got damaged due to the fire occurred in between 10 p.m. On 8.8.2002 and 5.30 a.m. On 9.8.2002. The opp.party on receipt of the claim intimation from the complainant had deputed a competent, qualified and licensed insurance surveyor and loss assessor Mr. G. Renadev for inspecting the shop premised and for assessing the loss sustained on account of the incident of fire, in accordance with the policy condition. Though the incident of fire was occurred on 8th /9th August, 2002, the complainant reported the claim before this opp.party only on 12.8.2002. The surveyor visited the shop on 13.8.2002. As per the claim form submitted by the complainant on 13.8.1001, the cause of fire is due to electric short circuit. On the detailed examination of the surveyor he could lnot find any sign of electrical short circuit for the cause of fire. The surveyor during his inspection found that the complainant was lnot maintaining any stock register, purchase bills or any records showing the stocks and the sales particulars. The surveyor in the absence of any authentic records showing the stocks maintained by the complainant at the time of fire have physically inspected the debris in layer by layer with the assistance of a helper and identified the damaged items and its quantities and assessed the maximum loss by giving the benefit of doubts in favour of the complainant. The surveyor after detailed inspection has assessed the maximum loss to a sum of Rs.12,785/-. The complainant had given a list of 152 items worth Rs.1,80,000/- prepared by him during the time of inspection by the surveyor, based on assumptions and presumptions. The surveyor found that the list submitted by the complainant is far from reality and it is only an imaginary one for the purpose of claiming inflated compensation from the opp.party. The complainant's shop was having no sales Tax registration at the time of incident. The complainant himself has admitted the fact that his shop was having only a sale turn over of less than Rs.1,000/- per day at the time of incident. In fact there was a sale turn over of less than Rs.1,00,000/- per year in the complainant's shop and that is the reason why the complainant was not even having a sales tax registration t the time of incident. As per the finding of the surveyor the complainant was conducti9ng a small provisional shop with a minimum stock worth less than Rs.20,000/- at the time of fire.. The opp.party on the basis of the survey report submitted by the Insurance surveyor sent a discharge voucher on 14.8.2003 for the said amount with a request to return the voucher duly discharged for effecting payment. The complainant failed to return the voucher duly discharged by him and the opp.party thereafter sent a registered letter to the complainant on 29.8.2003 with a request to complay with the requirements mentioned in the letter dated 14.8.2003. But the complainant refused to accept the said letter and it has returned to the opp.party. The complainant in this case is not entitled to get anything more than that of the extent of loss assessed by the surveyor. There is no deficiency in the service rendered by this opp.party in deciding the claim of the complainant. Hence opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> The point that would arise for consideration are:<br /> [1] Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opp.partly.<br /> [2] Reliefs and cost.<br /> For the complainant PW.1 to PW.3 are examined. Ext. P1 to P12 are marked.<br /> For the opp.party DW.1 is examined. Ext.D1 to D5 are marked.<br /> Points 1 and 2<br /> <br /> <br /> The complainant's case is that his shop caught fire and many furniture kept in the shop were burned . He filed claim petition before the opp.parties for realization of claim amount as loss happened to him in the event of fire. The surveyor of the opp.party assessed the value of the loss to be Rs.12,785/- According to the complainant that amount is a very meager amount did not accept this offer and he filed this complaint claiming Rs.2,61,341/-along with 12% future interest. Opp.party's contention is that the actual value of the loss happened to the complaint is Rs.12,785/- and the list submitted by the complainant is far from reality.<br /> <br /> Hire there is no dispute regarding the fire incident happened in the complainant's shop and he is entitled to get the value of loss occurred to the complainant. The question to be decided is that what the quantum of compensation entitled to the complainant. For proving the complainant's case, he has examined PW.1 to PW.3 and produced Exts.P1 to P12 The complainant has not produced any cogent evidence before the Forum to prove his actual loss or to nullify the report of the surveyor Ext.P1 to P8 are bills given by several stores. As these documents are not signed or sealed these documents cannot be accepted. The complainant did not produce the stock register maintained in the shop Ext.P9 is the report given by Fire Station officer assessing the loss of the tune of Rs.1,27,000/- and Ext.P10 is the G.D. Abstract of Eroor Police Station assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.90,000/-. With regard to Ext.P9 and P10, the Forum is unable to accept these documents because these documents were prepared by Fire Station inspector and Sub Inspector of Police respectively. For proving the quantum of compensation the opp.party produced Ext.D1, D2 and D3. As per these documents the assessed value of the loss to be Rs.12,785/-. For proving these documents opp.parties ought to have examined the surveyors who prepared these documents without examining those persons the Exts.D1, D2 and D3 cannot be accepted. <br /> <br /> The complainant has not proved the actual loss to the tune of Rs.2,61,341/- In this view of the matter, we award a compensation of Rs.30,000/- in favour of the complainant along with 9% interest per annum from the date of loss till the payment is made. The opp. .parties are also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as cost to the proceedings. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this the 30TH day of June, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> I n d e x<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the complainant's<br /> PW.1. Mukundan.K.C<br /> PW.2. M.V. Varghese<br /> PW.3. - Surendra Babu<br /> <br /> List of documents for the complainant<br /> P1. Photocopy of bills issued by Kumara Agency<br /> P2. - Bill dt. 6.8.2002<br /> P3. - Bill dated 6.8.2002<br /> P4.- Bill issued by Deepastores<br /> P5. - Bill dated 6.8.2002 by Deepa stores for Rs.5358/-<br /> P6. - Bill dt. 6.8.2002 by Sukumar Agencies for Rs.17,937<br /> P7. - Bill for Rs.8874/-<br /> P8. - Bill for Rs.3407.50<br /> P9. - G.D. Report from Eroor Police Station<br /> P10. - Report from Fire Force<br /> P12. - G.D. Entry extract<br /> <br /> List of witnesses for the opp.party<br /> DW.1. - R. Asok Kumar<br /> <br /> List of documents for the opp.party<br /> D1. - Survey report<br /> D2. - Supplementary report<br /> D3. - Investigation reported<br /> D4. - Letter sent by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. to the complainant<br /> D5. - Regd. Lr. Sent by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. To the complainant.<br /> <br /> <br />