ORDER
PER SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

The case of the complainant is that in order to safeguard themselves
ad the goods held by them as a dealer they purchase two policies. The
description of which given as under:
PolicyNo.360900/ 11/09/36060011083100000226 And
policy no 360900/48/09/9800000 1724 valid from
15-12-2009 to 14-12-2010.The risk covered was as under :-
(i) Building And Stocks against fire and Earth quake by 1st
Policy
And
(i) Fire & Allied Perils(contents)
(ii)Burglary and House Breaking
(iii) Money Insurance(in transit, in safe, in till /counter)
(iv)Neon and Glow Signs
(v) Buggage Insurance
(vi)Public liability
The location covered was D-9,MayaPuri Phase —II,NewDelhi-11006 4
It is alleged by the complainant that on  intervening night of
5-6-2011 to some unknown person took away some goods from godowns
after breaking the loks of the door on the front and back side of the
shop.  The matter was reported to police  on 6-11-2010 and the OP was
also informed about the incident vide letter dated 6-11-2010.  The
police authority closed the case was untraced.  The OP appointed M/s
Aditi Consultant Pvt. Ltd as their surveyor, who visited the site of
theft, and recorded the statement of complainant no. 2, the said
surveyor had also prepared a physical vertification report on the
site.  It is alleged by the complainant that they had supplied all the
documents to the surveyor as and when demanded by it.  It is further
alleged by the complainant that despite of supplying the copies of
documents, balance sheet, copies of sale bills, trading A/c, cash book
etc.  The Ops had not settled the claim of the complainant and had
rather rejected the same vide letter dt. 18-9-2012.  The complainants
therefore approached this forum for the redressal of his grievances.
The Op has contended the complainant.  A written statement has been
filed by the OP wherein several preliminary objection have been taken.
The defence of OP is contained in para 6 of the reply on merits, which
have been reproduced as under:-
6-10. That the contents of para 6-10 are wrong and denied. It is submitted
that complainant has not been maintaining the stock register and the
detail of stock before the incident and the basic of valuation could
not be provided. Further, the claim value of the quantity of tyre lost
in incident were not provided. Since, the complainant has not provided
details, documents, evidence despite various letters and reminders to
substantiate the claim. Hence, the claim was repudiated.
Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavits.
We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.
The counsel for the OP contended that the complainant has not provided
details, documents, evidence despites various letters and remainders
to substantiate the claim. It is further contended by the counsel for
th OP that the complainant has not been maintaining the stock register
before the incident and the basis of valuation could not be provided.
The counsel for the OP has prayed for the dismissal of complaint on
the ground that the complainant has not provided the requisite
documents to the surveyors due to which surveyor could not assess the
loss and had recommended repudiation of claim.  The learned counsel
for the OP has taken as through the copy of repudiation letter dated
18-9-2012 and a copy of several reminder letters which has been placed
on record.  The perusal of this letter show that the complainant had
not provided the requisite claim documents to the surveyor to assess
the loss and hence surveyor was constrained to recommend  for
repudation of the claim and the OP acted accordingly.
We are in agreement with the contention of the counsel the OP that
company has acted on the report of the surveyor , who is a neutral
person whose report cannot be brush aside without any cogent reasons.
The complainant has not alleged that the surveyor was biased against
him or acted malafidely. No cogent reason has been shown as to why the
OP should not act on the report of the surveyor.
We, therefore, are of the opinion that the OP had rightly repudiated
the claim of the compliannat.  We are of the view that no case of
deficiency has been made out in the present case. The complaint is
without merit and is hereby dismissed.
Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule.
    File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................