Per – Hon’ble Mr. S. R. Khanzode, Judicial Member This consumer complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service for repudiation of the insurance claim by the insurance company. It is alleged that the goods/stock stored in the godown were damaged in the floods of 25th and 26th of July, 2005 and there was a total loss to the extent of `81,00,000/- and odd. An insurance claim was made to the extent of insured value of `30,00,000/- and the same stood repudiated by the Opponent No.1, namely – National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurance company’ for the sake of brevity) by its letter dated 18/11/2005 referring to the Surveyor’s Report and observations to the effect that as the flood damaged stocks or their remains could not be physically checked/verified at the site, it is impossible to consider admittance of the claim. Feeling aggrieved thereby this consumer complaint is filed on or about 22/6/2006. The Opponent No.2, namely – Indian Overseas Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’ for the sake of brevity) is the financer of the Complainant with whom the damaged goods alleged to have been pledged. [2] Insurance company appeared and resisted the claim justifying their repudiation as per their written version dated 17/8/2007 and which is affirmed by its official, namely – Bidya Bhushan Patra, in his affidavit dated 26/11/2008, which is tendered in evidence on behalf of the insurance company. [3] The Opponent No.2 Bank resisted the claim as per its written version dated 2/8/2007, duly affirmed by way of verification by an affidavit of Mr. Ramkrishna – Senior Manager. The Bank is impleaded as a formal party since no relief is claimed against it and this is what exactly the Bank has stated in its written version too. It is pertinent to note that in its written version or verification affidavit, the Bank did not refer to the Stock Statement or the actual stock in the godown at the time of event of flood. [4] Heard the learned advocate for the Complainant. [5] In the instant case on behalf of the Complainant except the affidavit dated 15/4/2006, by way of verification of the complaint filed by the Complainant’s proprietor, namely – Mrs. Varsha Naresh Pandya and one dated 23/9/2009, which is un-sworn affidavit, no other evidence is tendered as per provisions of Section-13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for the sake of brevity) on behalf of the Complainant. Mere producing of certain documents which are not public documents and mostly unattested photocopies, is not synonymous of tendering those documents in evidence. The Complainant solely relied upon the ‘Panchanama’ drawn by the ‘Talathi’ or by police authorities, which bears the date 7/8/2005. Same is not tendered in evidence, and therefore, cannot be considered. Same is the case in respect of Bank Stock Statement. Besides this, even for the sake of arguments if these documents are considered, the ‘Panchanama’ specifically though affirm the physical existence of so-called damaged goods or stock due to flood water, it did not specifically state anything about the examination of the said stock to declare that the said stock was really found fully damaged by flood water. There was no technical person present to verify such fact. Therefore, even if said document is read in evidence, still it looses its evidentiary value to speak for the damage caused to the stock stored in the godown. [6] Insurance company, admittedly, repudiated the claim as per its letter dated 18/11/2005 (supra). Insurance company also produced on the record a copy of the surveyor’s report but, the same is also not tendered in evidence and there is no affidavit of a surveyor. It appears that no stock or remains thereof was produced before the surveyor. If, we assume the correctness of the statement in police ‘Panchanama’ (supra), the damaged stock was very much lying in the godown and which could have been produced before the surveyor for proper assessment. Therefore, repudiation of the insurance claim for the grounds stated supra cannot be termed as ‘arbitrary’ or ‘without any basis’. Hence, no deficiency in service can be attributed to the insurance company repudiating the insurance claim of the Complainant. Therefore, there arises no question to grant any compensation in terms of consumer dispute for alleged deficiency in service under the Act. We hold accordingly and pass the following order:- ORDER The complaint stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Pronounced on 27th September, 2011 |
