Per Hon’ble Mr.Narendra Kawde, Member
1. Appellant and their counsel remained absent. Heard Mr.Baburao Abhale-Advocate for the respondent.
2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30/11/2006 passed in consumer complaint no.13/2006, (Sau.Shubhangi Tukaram Dhumal v/s. New India Assurance Co.Ltd. and another); by District Forum, Satara. District Forum while allowing the consumer complaint of the present respondent/ original complainant directed the appellant/opponent no.1/New India Assurance Company to pay an amount of `1,07,800/- with interest @ 12% p.a. effective from 18/11/2005 and further additionally directed to pay `3,500/- towards compensation and `1000/- as costs of the litigation.
3. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, appellant/opponent no.1/New India Assurance Company (in brief ‘Insurance Company’) has preferred this appeal on the ground that the Ld. District Forum did not appreciate the evidence led in trial, especially, when no rain water did enter the premises of the respondent/complainant and there was no consequent damage due to flood as alleged.
4. Undisputed facts on record are that the respondent/complainant being an unemployed educated youth availed loan of `4,50,000/- for establishing grinding machine for chilly powder from original opponent no.2 i.e.Shivkrupa Sahakari Patpedhi. At the time of availing the loan, opponent no.1 extended insurance cover of `2,17,000/- for a period effective from 08/04/2005 to 07/04/2006 towards the goods and stock of the respondent/complainant. On 4th and 5th August 2005 there were heavy rains resulting into damage of the stock. On intimation to the appellant/opponent no.1/Insurance Company of the incidence, the surveyor was appointed who conducted the survey and recommended the net loss of `1,07,800/- as payable to the respondent/complainant. Thereafter, the insurance claim filed by the respondent/complainant was repudiated by the appellant/opponent no.1/Insurance Company on the ground that there was no inundation due to flood as the stock was stored on the first floor of the premises. Aggrieved with the repudiation respondent/org.complainant preferred consumer complaint before the District Forum which was allowed and the impugned order as mentioned in para 2, supra, was passed.
5. The undisputed facts are that the appellant/opponent no.1/Insurance Company has issued insurance policy to cover the loss of stock for a period from 08/04/2005 to 07/04/2006 with the sum assured of `2,17,000/-. There is no dispute that there were heavy rains on 4th and 5th July 2005 as reported by the authorized surveyor himself followed by the day to day report of rains issued by Collector, Satara. The authorized surveyor assessed the loss to the extent of `1,17,800/- and deducted `10,000/- on account of salvage and recommended net liability to the extent of `1,07,800/-.
6. Policy covering the extended insurance cover is not available on record nor it is the case of the appellant/opponent no.1/Insurance Company that the entire premises where the stock was kept was not covered under the insurance policy. It is their contention that loss was occurred due to seepage of water. Whether the loss was required to be covered due to inundation or flood is not clarified by the appellant/opponent no.1/Insurance Company. Repudiation letter issued by the appellant/opponent no.1/ Insurance Company is also not on record. In the facts and circumstances and on perusal of the record, we find that all the factual details were properly appreciated by the Ld. District Forum and awarded the compensation of `1,07,800/- as recommended by the authorized surveyor. We do not find any merit in the appeal and impugned order therefore cannot be faulted with. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal stands dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 31st July, 2012.
