This appeal is directed against the final order dated 12/3/2019 in reference to CC/15/2018 of Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Uttar Dinajpur. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the complainant/appellant Nurul Islam registered a consumer complaint under Section 12 of CP Act, 1986 to the effect that he purchased an insurance policy for the period between 24/2/2016 and 23/2/2017 to protect the goodown and the items stacked in his goodown for the business which he used to run as self-employment to maintain the livelihood. On 14/05/2016 in the night a devastating fire was broken out in his goodown and the stock articles in the goodown were completely damaged by which he sustained huge loss and to reimburse the said loss, he submitted a claim before the Insurance Company on 15/06/2016. But the said claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and misrepresentation on the part of the claimant/ insured. So, he registered the instant consumer complaint. The said consumer dispute was contested by the National Insurance Co. as OP by filing written version and contended inter alia that the said goodown of the complainant was not pucca construction at the relevant time of the insurance. But suppressing of the said fact the insured has submitted the insurance proposal mentioned the goodown as pucca building and for this misrepresentation of fact, he has violated the policy condition and for that reason, the insurance company has no option but to repudiate the claim of the complainant. The complainant as well as the insurance company has submitted their evidences and all necessary documents was produced before the Ld. Forum and after hearing both sides. Ld. Forum has come to a conclusion that the instant case was liable to be dismissed as because the complainant has failed to prove the case.    

            Being aggrieved with the said order this appeal follows on the ground that the observation of the Ld. Forum was not appreciable in law and the impugned judgment suffers from non-application of judicial mind and such final order should be set aside. The appeal was registered in due time and it was admitted on its own merit and the notice upon the respondent National Insurance Co. was issued. The National Insurance Co. after receiving of the notice has appointed Ld. Advocate B. Maitra to conduct the hearing of the case. The appellant has conducted the case through his Ld. Advocate Mr. Asis Das and Ujjal Saha and National Insurance Company has conducted the hearing through Ld. Advocate Bhaskar Maitra. The appeal was heard in presence of both the advocates today on merit.

D E C I S I O N   W I T H   R E A S O N S

Having heard the Ld. Counsels of both sides this Commission finds that the complainant being a rustic village man used to run his business of purchasing jutes to sell it in future and for the ends of his livelihood, he used to store the jutes in his goodown. But the said goodown was not properly constructed and the wall of the building was made with tin and the roof of the said goodown was made with bamboos and tin. The investigation report prepared by IRDA license holder Kaushik Gupta who made a local enquiry visiting the spot and come to a conclusion that the value at risk in average was to be fixed at Rs. 2,68,800/-. But in conclusion of his opinion, he mentioned in his survey report the building was made with GC roof fitting on bamboos truss with GC Sheet wall.  

            During the course of argument, it is highlighted on the part of the Ld. Advocate of the respondent that in the proposal form before purchasing the insurance policy, the insured has mentioned his building was pucca whereas in his cross examination before the Ld. Forum he admitted the fact that at the time of proposal of policy there was no pucca construction. Ld. Advocate further highlighted the conditions laid down in clause no. 3.2 of the terms and conditions of the policy (Annexure-E) where it was stipulated that if there be any material misdescription of any of the property insured or of any building or place in which such properties contained, or any misrepresentation as to material fact to be known for estimating the risk, or any omission to state such fact, the companies shall not be liable under this policy order as it relates to the property affected by any such misdescription, misrepresentation or omission. Ld. Advocate of the appellant at the time of his argument mentioned that the complainant is not an educated man and he has filled up the proposal form with his ignorance and for that reason, his legitimate claim should not be curtailed. After perusing the investigating surveyor report very properly, we find that the jute is an inflammable article which should be kept in well protected manner and in a well-protected place, whereas the stock jutes was stacked in the goodown of the complainant haphazardly while the room was built with tin wall and roofed with bamboo truss with GC Sheets. And in such a position, if any fire article contacted with stock jutes the possibility of contact with fire increases and such fire becomes higher. This conduct of the complainant clearly shows that he has violated the exception clause of the terms and conditions of the policy. His misrepresentation before the Insurance Company by filing the proposal form has caused serious fatal to the claim case of the complainant. And for that reason, this Commission thinks that the order of Ld. Forum does not suffer from any ambiguity or abnormality.

So, the appeal devoids of any merit.

            Hence, it is,

O r d e r e d: -

            That the appeal be and the same is hereby dismissed on contest without any cost. The final order of Ld. Forum Uttar Dinajpur dated 12/03/2019 in reference to CC/15/2018 is hereby confirmed.

            Let the copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the same be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Uttar Dinajpur through e-mail.