Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:

(1)          This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 04.03.2010 passed in Consumer complaint No.400/2006, Kirit Dayalal Morjaria V/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Mumbai (‘Forum below’ in short).

(2)          Undisputed facts are that Respondent/original Complainant had taken Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy (Material Damage) issued by Appellant/original Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as ‘Insurance Company’).  It is also not disputed that the Complainant had erected pendals/mandap for counting votes, the work which was entrusted to him by the Government through Executive Engineer, Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation, Dombivli Division.  Those pendals got damaged on 22.09.2000 in the storm and the Complainant immediately got erected new pendals as per the requirement.  Thereafter, Insurance claim was lodged, i.e. three days after the incident.  When the surveyor visited the spot, he could not see any damaged pendals or damaged articles of the previous pendals.  He reported accordingly to the Insurance Company and insurance Company as per letter dated 29.07.2002 repudiated the claim in following words:

“Further to our letter Re.PRT:SPP:208:2002, you have submitted the various documents like BMC Certificate, FIR Statement of damaged items etc.  There documents were handed over to surveyors for their opinion and assessment of the loss.

Now we are in receipt of a letter from surveyors advising us that extent of damage loss cannot be assessed due to non-availability of prhotographs and presentation of damaged material for their inspection details.  This is also in conformity with Fire Policy condition no.6(i)b,.  Hence we have closed this file as “NO CLAIM’ in our books.  No further correspondence in this regard will be entertained.”

Feeling aggrieved thereby this consumer complaint was filed.

(3)          Forum below upholding the contentions of the Complainant awarded compensation of `4,34,432/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and feeling aggrieved thereby this appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company.

(4)          At the time of hearing Respondent/original Complainant preferred to remain absent.  We heard Ld.Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.  Perused the record.  Relevant clause 6(i)b reads from the Insurance Policy reads as under:

“Particulars of all other insurance, if any;

(i)               The insured shall also at all times at his own expense produce, procure and give to the Company all such further particulars, plans, specifications, books, vouchers, invoices, duplicates or copies thereof, documents, investigation reports (internal/external), proofs and information with respect to the claim and the origin and cause of the loss and the circumstances under which the loss or damage occurred, and any matter touching the liability or the amount of the liability of the Company as may be reasonably required by or on behalf of the Company together with a declaration on oath or in other legal form of the truth of the claim and of any matters connected therewith.

No claim under this policy shall be payable unless the terms of this condition have been complied with.”

(4)          Except his own bear statement, there is hardly any evidence adduced on behalf of Complainant to substantiate his claim for damage/compensation.  Accordingly, Complainant did not give intimation of the event in time to the Insurance Company and according to him the delay occurred since he had to re-erect the pendals looking to the election programme and urgency thereof.  But he certainly could have kept articles, which could not have been reused and would have shown them to the surveyor when he visited the site.  He preferred not to do so for the reasons best known to him.  Further, if we refer to the list of damaged goods which was submitted to the Surveyor, it reads as under:

200 Bamboo  `6,000, 80 Vansa   `32,000/-, 60 patra `57,000/-, 6500 ft.patti `13,000/-, 21 katha bundles   `13,650/-, 100 chairs  `20,000/-, 53 tables   `29,150/-, 25000 sq.ft. talpatri   `3,00,000/-, 85 labours for three shifts   `38,250/-, 12 truck transportation     `25,000/-, 12 truck bhara khali karai   `9,600/-,  Total damage was `5,38,650/-

Referring to this list, except katha bundle which is a consumable item, rest of the articles, if damaged, could have been presented to the Surveyor.  Bamboos appear to have been reused.  It is not the case that any iron sheet was lost.  Tarpatri said to be damaged as per the report of Executive Engineer, but, to that extent he has not specified transportation charges.  Transportation charges certainly cannot be claimed.  Thus, we could see that there is hardly any material placed on record by the Complainant to substantiate his claim.  In fact, insurance company rightly relied the on policy condition 6(i)(b) particularly, last paragraph of the said clause, supra.  When it was specifically stipulated for no claim under the policy shall be payable unless terms of this condition no. 6(i)(b) are complied with and since Complainant miserably failed to prove his claim and repudiation by the insurance company cannot be faulted with and as such no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company could be alleged.  Forum below erred in awarding the claim partly.  Thus, we hold accordingly and pass the following order:

O  R  D  E  R

     (i)       Appeal is allowed.

    (ii)       Impugned order dated 04.03.2010 is set aside.

  (iii)       In the result, Complaint No.400/2006 stands dismissed.

  (iv)       No order as to costs.