ORAL JUDGMENT

PER JUSTICE MR. V.R. KINGAONKAR

          We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.          There are concurrent findings of the District Consumer Forum and the State Commission in respect of the claim put forth by the revision petitioner, which was held to be barred by limitation.  Both the Foras below held that the petitioner did not file relevant documents regarding due intimation given to the insurer immediately after the occurrence of death of the birds.

3.          Perusal of the orders of the Foras below and the relevant records shows that the petitioner came out with a case that 5200 layer birds were insured on 30th September, 1997 on payment of premium of Rs.11,057/-.  The period of insurance commenced from 30^th September, 1997 and outer limit was of 72 weeks commencing from 15-07-1997.  It appears that the petitioner claimed the amount of value of 2398 birds, which had died, allegedly during the period of insurance cover available to him.

4.      The District Consumer Forum came to the conclusion that there was no written communication made by the petitioner about the death of the birds, no post mortem report was available to show that the death had occurred within the relevant policy period, nor written claim was submitted to the insurer well within proximity of the alleged death of the birds.  The claim was lodged with the insurer on 30^th August, 2002, as it was alleged that a postal communication was made and since allegedly there was no response from the insurer, the complaint was filed on 14-11-2002.

5.      The District Consumer Forum held that the petitioner did not file any document to show that he was prevented from filing of the claim with the insurer and made mere vague allegation that officers of the insurer assured him to prefer the claim as and when it was filed.  The District Consumer Forum further held that there was no evidence to accept contention of the petitioner that the so-called communication of the claim was forwarded to the insurer on 30^th August, 2002 except filing of the photograph of postal receipt.  No other document was placed before the District Consumer Forum. The District Consumer Forum as well as the State Commission rendered the concurrent findings with version of the petitioner that the claim was belatedly preferred claim because of the advise given to him to prefer such claim after the end of the insurance policy was unacceptable.

6.      The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he will produce necessary documents in order to show that such claim was preferred within a reasonable period.  He contends that the findings of both the Foras below are incorrect.  We do not deem it proper to grant any time because all the necessary documents were available with the District Consumer Forum and moreover, in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, appreciation of the evidence by the Foras below cannot be faulty.  We do not find any perversity committed by the Foras below while rejecting the claim of the petitioner.  The petitioner failed to show that   2398 birds had died during the relevant period and that the claim was immediately filed with the insurance company in the prescribed format.  By order dated 13^th April, 2011 sufficient time was given to the petitioner to place on record copy of the claim filed by him with the insurance company in the prescribed format. Inspite of giving such sufficient opportunity, no such document is placed on record till date.  Considering all these aspects, the petitions are dismissed.