(Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member)

(1)               This appeal is directed as against the order dated 31/07/2008 in Consumer Complaint No.242/06 (Mr.Ketan Vitra & ors. Vs. M/s.Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Co. Ltd.) passed by Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (In short ‘District Forum’).  By way of the said order, District Forum allowed the complaint of the present respondent/original complainant and directed the appellant M/s.Bajaj Allianze Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to be as ‘opponent Insurance Company’) to pay an amount of `12,67,481=93 with 10% p.a. effective from 21/09/2005 towards the loss sustained due storm.  The District Forum also further directed to pay the amount of `20,000/- towards mental agony and `10,000/- towards costs of litigation.  Aggrieved and dissatisfied with this impugned order, the appellant Insurance Company has filed with appeal. 

(2)               The appellant Insurance Company’s contention is that the repudiation of claim of the respondent/complainant was based on the report of the surveyor and his recommendations.  The repudiation was supported by the meteorology report obtained from the Meteorological Department located at Surat to establish that there were no storm and consequent rains during the period of incidence of the loss suffered by the respondent/complainant.  As the alleged storm did not exist or occur on 21/09/2005 as per the meteorological report.  Claim of loss preferred to by respondent/complainant was repudiated as not covered under the policy clause 6. 

(3)               The respondent/complainant’s case is that they have subscribed to insurance policy bearing No.OG-06-1906-40001-00000522 for the period from 18/07/2005 to 17/07/2006 for providing insurance cover of sum assured of `3,43,50,000/- to building, furniture, fixtures and stock.  During the validity period of the said policy, the respondent/complainant has suffered loss to the stock to the extent of `12,67,481/- due to storm and heavy rains in an around insured premises between 19/09/2005 to 21/09/2005.  20^th September was staggering holiday for factory and on opening the store on 21^st September, workers noted that cement sheets on the roof were displaced causing rain water to enter the store and damaged the stock.  Immediately, after noticing the damage sustained to the stock, it was reported to the appellant, Insurance Company and Shri J. Anthony was appointed as a surveyor to assess the loss.  However, the said surveyor did not reach the insured premises because of heavy rains, storm/cyclone in the area on 21/09/2005.  Consequently, the appellant Insurance Company appointed one P.D.Desai as surveyor to inspect the site and assess the loss.  The said surveyor visited insured premises on 23/09/2005.  However, copy of the survey report was not furnished to the respondent/complainant.  The complainant filed the claim to reimburse the loss incurred to the stock which was repudiated by the appellant Insurance Company and therefore the consumer complaint has been filed by the respondent/complainant before the District Forum.

(4)               Heard, the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the claim preferred for reimbursement of losses was rightly repudiated by the appellant Insurance Company as there was no storm with heavy rains during the period of 19/09/2005 to 21/09/2005 and damage caused to the stock was not due to alleged storm.  Further, it was submitted that during the site visited by the surveyor, deposition/growth of moss on the inner surface of the sheets spread on the roof was clearly visible and that the said sheets on the roof had become porous prior to the incident which was the cause of the leakage resulting into damage to the stock stored.

(5)               The Standard Fire & Special Peril Policy purchased by the respondent/complainant covers premises, stock, fixtures & furniture and terms & conditions appended thereto clause 4 provides to cover the loss destruction or damage directly caused by-storm, cyclone, typhoon, tempest, hurricane, flood & inundation.  The interpretation of the appellant Insurance Company that the loss sustained by the respondent/complainant to the stock was due to rain water seeping through the roof due to moss & sheets becoming porous is not acceptable as there is no documentary evidence on record submitted U/s.13(4) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to establish their contention.   Moreover before insuring the premises, opponent Insurance Company must have fulfilled the obligation to inspect the insured property to notice the defect of moss on sheets with porous, if any. There is no whisper about such inspection report.   The learned District Forum has observed that as per the meteorology report, there was storm on 21/09/2005 from 0115 hours to 0215 hours IST; 1505 hours to 2150 hours IST & 2230 hours to 2320 hours IST as against the initial contention of the appellant Insurance Company of no storm theory on 21/09/2005.  These findings are based on report of Meteorology Department of Surat filed by the appellant, Insurance Company itself and we are in complete agreement with the finding given by the District Forum. The appellant, Insurance Company has not adduced any documentary evidence as contended to rebut that the damages not occurred due to thunder storm and heavy rains in and around the godown premises.  Therefore, submission of learned counsel for the appellant justifying repudiation of the claim, as such a micro-level term is not provided under the policy is not acceptable.   We have considered this case in its entirety.  In view of the observations above, we find that the appeal is devoid of merit and therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum cannot be faulted with.  We hold accordingly and pass the following order.

ORDER

(1)     The appeal stands dismissed.

(2)     Parties to bear their own costs.

Pronounced on 25^th January, 2012.