23-09-2015 - The reasons for delay in disposal of this appeal can be seen from the     order sheet.

1. Inspite of fixing this case for passing ex-parte order, nobody appears on behalf of the complainant – appellant.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for O.P. – respondent (Insurance Company for short).

3. This complaint was filed claiming fire insurance claim. According to the complainant, the surveyor made out a total inventory of burnt and non-burnt items and directed it to submit the claim. Accordingly, the claim for Rs. 9,61,069/- along with relevant documents was submitted. But inspite of repeated requests, a copy of the surveyor-cum-assessment report was not given to the complainant. The Insurance Company settled the claim at Rs. 89,518/- only, which the complainant did not accept and requested for reassessment through other agency.

4. The Insurance Company contested the case interalia on the following grounds. The complainant failed to produce the documents before the surveyor in compliance of the letters dated 01.07.2008, 25.07.2008, 20.08.2008 and 09.09.2008. Then incomplete documents were submitted by the complainant and therefore on 01.10.2008 another letter was issued to clarify certain points mentioned in the letter, which the complainant failed to clarify. Several discrepancies were observed in course of assessment of loss on account of non-production of documents. Stock register was not maintained properly; sale memos were not furnished; surprisingly, the purchase memos were of only one shop; books of accounts were not produced at the time of survey, on the ground that the purchase and sale register along with sale memos were burnt but subsequently statement of stock was submitted without sale memos. It was also surprising that no bank account was maintained by the complainant and all transactions were shown in cash; the electric bill was doubtful. Thus, as the exact quantity of damaged stock could not be substantiated, the surveyor allowed 50% of the value of the damaged identified stock. The electric fittings were not covered under the policy. In view of the said discrepancies, the claim was settled on non-standard basis by deducting 25%  for non-supply of proper books of account and thus the loss was assessed at Rs. 89,518/-

5. The learned District Forum interalia observed as follows. The sale memos were not available due to burning, but even then the details of sales were furnished and thus they were not reliable, in view of burning of the details of sale. The photocopy of the stock register also appeared to have been manufactured, as it was the own admission of the complainant that stock register was also burnt. Adverse inference was drawn for not producing the bank account. The income tax papers were in the name of other person. The purchase memos were doubtful as they were not produced at the time of survey. The explanation given by the complainant about non-production of stock register, that it was maintained at home, was not satisfactory and believable, because in the information petition dated 25.06.2008 given to the police, it was clearly mentioned that the sale and purchase registers were also burnt along with other article. The loss of damaged clothes was prepared in presence of the complainant worth Rs. 66,194/-. From the surveyor’s report, it appeared that the damage was to a certain portion of clothes and therefore the complainant could not claim damage of entire stock.  There was no reason to discard the surveyor’s report and the quantum of loss assessed by him. Therefore, it directed the Insurance Company to pay the assessed amount within a month of the order.

6. Thus, it is clear that the complainant – appellant could not prove it’s claim. The Surveyor’s report, was rightly held reliable.

7. After carefully going through the materials brought on record before us, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

Issue free copy of this order to all concerned for information and needful.

Ranchi,

Dated:- 23.09.2015