S.Majumder, Member

This appeal has arisen against the judgment passed by the District Forum, Murshidabad, on 19.09.2007, in its case no- Con. Prot. Misc 02/2007—29/2006, whereby the Ld. District Forum has allowed the complaint in part on contest against the OP-2 and dismissed exparte against the OP-1 without any order as to cost. The Op-2was directed to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant which will be adjusted with the outstanding dues of the OP-1 within a period of two months from the date of the judgment, in default the amount would carry interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the petition of complaint till actual payment.

The brief facts of the Complainant before the Forum below were that the Complainant carried on business of hardware under the name and style ‘Ali Hardware’ and for carrying on the said business he took loan from the OP-1, State Bank of India, Nagar Branch of Rs.4,00,000/- under cash credit facility and as per terms and conditions of the loan the Complainant insured the stock-in-trade of the business covering the risk of Rs.5,00,000/- with the OP-2. The said insurance policy has been renewed in each year and the stock-in-trade was insured for the period from 26.08.2004 to 25.08.2005. On 07.10.2004 the value of the stock-in-trade was of Rs.4,83,140/- and on the said date due to devastating flood occurred in the locality the entire stock-trade including all papers, stock register, sale register, cash memos etc. were washed away. On that account the complainant has sustained loss of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Complainant immediately informed the incident to the OP-1 and 2 in writing and prayed for adequate compensation covered under the policy but to no effect. Hence the Complainant filed the complaint before the district Forum praying for direction upon the OP-Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages and the cost amounting to Rs.5,000/- to him due to mental agony, harassment as well as expenditure of the litigation.

Being dissatisfied with the above-mentioned judgment the Insurance Company-Appellant has preferred the present appeal contending that the Forum below has passed the judgment ignoring the report of the Surveyor and the Complainant has failed to adduce any document to prove his loss due to flood. According to the Appellant the judgment Passed by the Forum below is erroneous, illegal and liable to be set aside and the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant has prayed for allowing the appeal.

During the final hearing the Appellant and the Respondent-2 were present and the Respondent was absent on calls inspite of receipt of notice. Therefore we took the appeal for final hearing exparte against the Respondent no-1.

On careful consideration of the facts and various documents, we have observed that the Complainant Respondent no-1 carried on business of hardware and for carrying on the said business he took loan from the State Bank of India-Respondent no-2 for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- under cash credit facility and as per terms and conditions of the said loan the Respondent no-1 insured the stock-in-trade of the business covering the risk of Rs5,00,000/- with the present Appellant-Insurance Company. It is an admitted fact as per the Bank's statement on 07.10.2004 the value of stock-in trade was of Rs.4,83,140/- and it is also an admitted fact that on 07.10.2004 a devastating flood was occurred in the locality of the Complainant-Respondent no-1. The Respondent no-1 has submitted that due to the said flood his entire stock-in trade including all papers i.e. stock register, sale register, cash memos were washed away and after this incident he informed the Insurance Company as well as the State Bank in writing praying for adequate compensation, but the Insurance Company had repudiated his claim as per their Surveyor's Report. It is seen by us that after getting information from the Respondent no-1, the Appellant appointed licensed surveyor for investigation of the case regarding loss due to flood, but the Respondent no-1 had failed to produce the flood damaged goods before the Surveyor as well as failed to quantify the loss amount and also to convince the Surveyor regarding his loss due to flood during the time of inspection by the Surveyor. For this reason the said surveyor rejected the claim for reimbursement of the Respondent no-1. Being dissatisfied with the repudiation made by the Insurance Company, the Respondent no-1 has filed the case before the Court of Law. It is true that the Respondent-1 has failed to adduce any cogent evidence in support of his contention that the entire stock-in trade was washed away due to flood. Therefore, we are not convinced with such argument advanced by the Complainant-Respondent-1 before the Forum below. In our opinion without cogent evidence from the Complainant’s end, the case cannot be adjudicated. In our opinion the Appellant based on surveyor’s report, considering all other documents, the terms and conditions of the policy, applying mind and in good faith, has rightly repudiated the claim of the Complainant-Respondent no-1 and the repudiation cannot be termed as deficiency in service on the part of the OP-Appellant-Insurance Company.

Hence, it is ordered that the appeal be allowed on contest with out any cost. The complaint be also dismissed. The judgment passed by the Ld. Forum below be set aside.