The case is taken up for judgement on remand as remanded by SCDRC with a direction to hold further trial following previous exparte order passed by DCDRC. DCDRC dismissed the complaint on the dearth of proper proof behind rainfall or climatic change in the weather at that period which was raised by the complainant.

          Facts embodied in the complaint petition is that, this complainant is a proprietor of a farm engaged in manufacturing of KURKURE, PAPAD etc who having  obtained/ purchased an insurance policy bearing no 031400111P106775282 for the period from 11.09.2015 to 10.09.2016 from the office of OP no 2 i.e. Divisional Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. Malda that during the continuance of the  said policy there was a heavy rainfall from 20.09.2015 to 30.09.2015 as a result of which all the materials which were kept or stacked in the go-down became submerged under water for which the complainant suffered a loss to the tune of rupees five lakhs. After recovery from the illness the proprietor of the said farm i.e. complainant inspected the go-down and found that the goods in the go-down were in worse damage condition. Thereafter the said proprietor informed the OP 2 on 02.11.2015 about the damage of the materials in the go-down due to heavy rainfall. After receiving the intimation OP 2 appointed a surveyor for assessment of loss. After survey the surveyor submitted his report but OP 2 repudiated the claim of this complainant because damage of crops as per report was due to damp and moisture which is not covered as insurance perils in the standard file and ‘Special Perils Policy’. The further case of the complainant is that as per the policy the complainant is entitled to get compensation on the ground of storm, cyclone, tempest, typhoon, hurricane, tornado and flood etc. so as the claim of the complainant was repudiated hence complainant approached this commission.

          After remand of this case OP contested on examining themselves on the basis of WV dated 22.09.2017 and 04.04.2022. On examination OP made statement that on 02.11.2015 this complainant made an application of claim which was on expiry of statutory period of the claim after the incident. A surveyor was appointed to detect the loss but this complainant did not co-operate with him. Thereafter one Tapodhan Roy, a surveyor visited the PO on 10.11.2015 when it was found that this complainant was not genuine one. This OP filed a survey report dated 11.01.2016 before this commission. The witness of the OP further deposed that the damage of material was caused due to damp and moisture which was not covered by this insurance policy. Complainant did not supply accounts book moreover the period which was mentioned as 20.09.2015 to 30.09.2015 and up to 20.10.2015 as peril period which was about one month which is not acceptable. The contention of heavy rain and entire materials were submerged under the water is false and his amount of loss is also false. 

DECISION

          The entire documents as filed by the parties and evidences by both the parties are perused by the commission.

          Now on perusal of the previous final order dated 25.11.2019 this present commission find that practically our ex-officio rejected the claim of complainant on the ground of not having any report from meteorological department to show that there was a heavy rainfall during the period in question. But we, the commission now find from the report dated 22.01.2021 by meteorological department (which was sent by the department on subsequent stage, prepared on 22.01.21) that on 19.09.15, 20.09.15, 21.09.15, 22.09.15, 23.09.15 and 24.09.15 there was continuous rainfall which was sometime drizzling, light and heavy also.

Accordingly as per this report there was fair chance that entire materials of the farm may be caused damaged or ruined. Consequently when previous commission rejected the complaint only on the ground of not having report of rainfall at those questioned days  then when that very report of meteorological department forwarded to this commission showing rainfall of those days, this present commission have nothing alternative but to hold about positive case of the complainant and to order to the Ops  or order to fulfill the prayer of complainant in respect of his payment of insurance behind his loss within six months of this adjudication.

          Complainant do get five lakhs as a claim of damage and also do get compensation plus litigation cost at the tune of rupees of one lakh (70 thousand for compensation and 30 thousand for litigation.

Hence  Ordered

That this complaint is in success after remand by the SCDRC. Complainant is entitled to get benefit of his insurance policy  031400111P106775282 on getting 5 lakhs as damaged to materials and compensation plus litigation cost as 1 lakh.

          The insurance company is directed to clear the amount within six months from the date of this order i/d 6% interest will run on the entire amount until paid. No order of cost.

Complainant is also entitled to apply either U/S 71 or 72 (whichever like) of CP act 2019 if required.

Let a copy of judgment/final order be supplied to the party at a free of cost.