JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he obtained a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from the op no.2 for a period communicating from 26.05.2011 to 25.05.2012 vide policy no. 311500/11/2012/166 against premium payment of Rs.8,383/-.

          Through valid period of the said policy under the op, complainant informed the op no.1 that on 20.08.2011 due to heavy rain fall the goods were entirely damaged and complainant/company came to know from the gate-keeper on the same day the same was communicated through fax on the very next working day, i.e. on 23.08.2011 and further requested the op no.1 to settle the claim of the complainant/company.

          Subsequently on 25.08.2011 the op no.2 surveyed the affected godown appointed by the op no.1 and after inspection the op no.2 opined that the goods were damaged due to seepage/oozing of rain water and not due to heavy rain and the same was communicated to the complainant/company by a letter dated 26.08.2011.

          Against that letter complainant raised objection on 01.09.2011 disputed the inspection of the op no.2 and its procedure of inspection.  In reply to the letter of the complainant/company, op no.2 on 05.09.2011 took some other issues different from the issues dealt with in the previous letter dated 26.08.2011.  Thereafter vide a letter dated 07.09.2011 complainant/company denied all the contentions of the letter of the op no.2 and again on 15.09.2011 the op no.2 denied the claim of the complainant alleging that no heavy rain fall caused in between the period 12.08.2011 to 20.08.2011 and the complainant/company replied back on 19.09.2011 stating that whether heavy rainfall occurred or not is subject to proof.

          Subsequently on 01.11.2011 the complainant/company wrote a letter to the op no.1 reminding both the ops for an answer from their part regarding their claim.  On the same day the op no.1 replied back stating that they are yet to get the surveyor report from the op no.2 and further it may be stated that till then the complainant/company did not receive any single document relevant to their claim or inspection held by the op no.2.  Further complainant sent a reminder to op no.1 and further asked the op no.1 to settle the claim of Rs.2,85,000/- after deduction of the salvage charge.

          But ultimately on 05.12.2011 op no.1 repudiated the claim of the complainant/company on the ground that his claim cannot be entertained as it falls under exclusion clause of the policy and hence the claim stands repudiation.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the op, the complainant finds no other alternative then to move before the Forum for relief.

          On the other hand op nos. 1 & 2 by filing written statement submitted that the present claim is not maintainable when complainant is guilty of suppressing material and pertinent facts relevant for the adjudication of the present complaint and further submitted that complainant by bringing some false allegations has filed this complaint for which same should be dismissed.

          But it is admitted fact that complainant took a Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy from the op no.1 as mentioned by the complainant.  Further op no.1 submitted that according to the opinion of the independent surveyor (op no.2) that the cause of loss is due to seepage/oozing which is not covered under the policy, which is stated in clause No.VI and as per Clause-IV of the policy complainant is not entitled to get any benefit.

          Further it has submitted that complainant was duly informed by the op no.2 about rejection of his claim as the damaged as caused was not for inundation and regarding allegations of the complainant, op has submitted that during inspection the two rooms against in respect of which complainant has made claim about damage of goods were not found at the time of inspection.  But it was stated by the complainant that stocks were already taken out from those two rooms prior to their inspection and without any intimation or permission from the insurer.  Even no photographs of the affected rooms before shifting the stocks were taken by the complainant to confirm that it was damaged in that room.

          It is also submitted by the ops that their surveyor got down on the floor of the rooms at a lower level to take the photographs of the walls which were found totally water soaked up to a height of 4/4.5 ft. from the floor level and there were two big alleged storage place like water reservoirs of 5.3 ft deep within the godown but no stock was found there.

          Further it is submitted that complainant was informed that heavy rain fall started on 06.08.2011 in Kolkata and other places of the state which continued till 11.08.2011 and there was no practically heavy rain, so complainant was asked to clarify how his godown was damaged due to heavy rainfall on 20.08.2011 when there was no rain on that day and complainant has failed to prove that fact also.

          Further it was submitted that there was no proper drainage system for recede the rainwater easily and there is no allegation that in between 06.08.2011 to 11.08.2011 due to heavy rainfall water entered into godown and fact remains that further it is alleged that complainant by sending different applications of different dates from 23.08.2011 to 19.09.2011 tried to establish that the stocks damaged due to inundation not by seepage.  But that has proved false and for which ultimately it was rejected.  Moreover surveyor collected the weather statement of Metrological Department printed by Telegraph Business as follows wherefrom it is found that on 20.08.2011 there was no rainfall but complainant in his complaint stated that due to that rainfall on 20.08.2011 his stocks were damaged.  So, the entire complaint is false and fabricated, so claim was rightly repudiated and there was no question of relief.  But with some ill motive to grab money, the present complaint is filed.  So, the complaint should be dismissed.

                                                   Decision with reasons

          In the present case, practically after studying meticulously the complaint and the written version including the surveyor’s report, it is clear that complainant in his complaint has tried to convince that due to heavy rainfall on 20.08.2011, the stocks of the goods in his godown were damaged due to inundation and it was reported to the ops on 23.08.2011 and claim of the complainant is that even after considering the seepage and damaged wall of the godown, surveyor rejected the claim stating that the fact that the damage was not caused due to inundation and it is completely false and for which complainant appeared before this Forum for relief.

          In this regard we have also heard arguments of the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties, but most interesting factor is that complainant nowhere has stated that due to rainfall from 06.08.2011 to 13.08.2011 entire godown was inundated.  But it is evident from the complaint including the materials letters of the complainant communicated to the op, we have gathered that the complainant is very much pressing upon the date 20.08.2011 claiming that on that date due to heavy rain fall his godown were damaged due to inundation and in this regard the Insurance Company no doubt sent their surveyor on the basis of the application of the op dated 23.08.2011 and accordingly surveyor submitted report in details and particularly surveyor submitted that after collecting statement from Metrological Department marked as 11 by the op , it is found that on 20.08.2011 there was no rainfall and surveyor also collected quantity of rainfall from 06.08.2011 to 19.08.2011 and from that report, it is also found that from 14.08.2011 to 19.08.2011 rainfall was very minimum.  It is within the range of 02.6 mm to 08.0mm but on 20.08.2011 there was no rainfall.  But peculiarity is that complainant has not claimed that due to heavy rainfall on 06.08.2011 to 10.08.2011 his godown were locked due to rainwater and inundation.  So, it is clear that the articles in the godown of the complainant were damaged due to heavy rainfall period from 06.08.2011 to 13.08.2011. 

But complainant’s pleas is that the articles were damaged due to heavy rainfall on 20.08.2011, but the report of the Metallurgical Department as collected by the op no.2 suggest that there was no rainfall on 20.08.2011.  So, complainant has failed to prove by any cogent evidence that on 20.08.2011 due to heavy rainfall his godown was damaged.  Further from the report of the surveyor that it is clear that the surveyor entered into the los premises not godown to see the condition of the outside of the wall of the godown together with complainant’s person Nirmal Babu stated to be a friend and Nirmal Babu did not find water there and the place was totally dry, and photographs of the backside of the walls was taken and in respect of affected walls and rooms and ultimately the op no.2 was satisfied that complainat’s entire story was totally untrue and complainant failed to prove by any way that on 20.08.2011 it was raining cats and dogs and further submitted that he did not find any water logging on the date of inspection.  But found that the floor level of the room was about 4.5 ft. below of the premises level of the godown and not water was found in that area, everything was found dry.  But it was found that walls were soaked but subsequently it was found that there was a water tank on the ground level and another factor is that in those godowns there was no stock.

So, the surveyor came to a conclusion that entire story of damage of the goods in the godowns of the complainant for inundation caused for heavy rainfall on 20.08.2011 is completely false and the cause of damage to the stocks had already been admitted by the complainant to be due to seepage.  So, the surveyor did not find any ground to consider the claim of the complainant and as per report of the op and that is the report of the surveyor dated 05.09.2011 that was sent to the complainant also and after getting that report, complainant one after another sent reminder and ops also asked to prove but complainant failed to prove it.

Now the main question is whether the complainant has stated the truth or false.  In this regard we have gone through the Metallurgical Department weather report published by the Telegraph marked as 11 by the op wherefrom we find that from 14.08.2011 to 19.08.2011 there was no heavy rainfall only minimum rainfall and on 20.08.2011 there was no rainfall and by document the surveyor has proved it.  Not only that surveyor did not find the articles in the said godown, rather surveyor found that the floor level of the said godowns at lower level 4.5 ft from the premises level of the godown.

Further they found that there was a reservoir inside the said godown attached area which is also deep 5 ft and above, no water was found outside or inside the said godown, only the walls were found damaged that means the entire godown is damaged godown, might be for some rain prior to that date caused such soaking and practically that is for the fault of the complainant because complainant did not prepare such godown making it always fit for keeping his stocks because as per policy, it is the duty of the insured to keep the articles in a safe godown and godown must be a nature which can be used as a protective place for keeping the manufacturer goods.

But in this case it is proved that complainant’s godown not at all a godown, it is damaged godown from very inception many years and only for the purpose of squeezing money the complainant has filed such a false case and from the fact that op has proved it by producing Metallurgical Department publication report in the Telegraph for the period from 06.08.2011 to 19.08.2011 including 20.08.2011.  The most interesting factor is that the complainant even after receipt of such document did not agree to change his mind, did not agree with the report of op but complainant appeared before this Forum by filing this case for solving as his stocks were damaged due to heavy rainfall on 20.08.2011 which is proved false story. 

So, we have gathered that Insurance company rightly repudiated the claim when the report of the surveyor was on the basis of the materials.  Surveyor inspected everything at this spot in presence of the member of the complainant and so the surveyor’s report cannot be treated as false and fabricated or baseless.  At the same time we have gathered that from the materials on record that Insurance Company completely relied upon the report of the surveyor and practically as per IRDA Rules report of the surveyor cannot be ignored by the Insurance Company if it is not otherwise proved a false or fabricated.

Particularly in this case, Insurance Company also applied their mind, judicial conscience, pros and cons of the entire claim application and also introspected the whole report of the surveyor and repudiated the claim and fact remains that the repudiation made by the op no.1 is found justified and reasonable in view of the fact that complainant’s claim of heavy rainfall on 20.08.2011 is proved a false story and there was no rainfall on 20.08.2011 as per Metallurgical Department publication of weather report of quantity of rainfall as stated with the report of the surveyor.

Considering the above fact and materials we are convinced to hold that the present complainant a business man is a dishonest business man and practically for his own laches the goods were damaged for keeping it in a damaged and lower level godown.  Though at the time of inspection those articles were found by the surveyor and fact remains that a greedy complainant appeared before this Forum to get justice but it is proved that he is dishonest business man and only for the purpose of getting claim amount he cocked up the false story that on 20.08.2011 heavy rainfall was caused and the entire area was inundated.  But the entire story is proved false story and for which we are convinced to hold that there was no ground to introduce such a false claim and complaint and considering the fact that it is a vexatious and false complaint against the ops only for squeezing money for which such complainant should be punished for adopting such unfair trade practice.

In the result, the complaint fails.

Hence, it is

                                                    ORDERED

That the complaint be and the same is dismissed against op with cost.

Complainant shall have to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as penal cost for filing this false and vexatious claim and also for filing a complaint by introducing false story, though on 20.08.2011 no torrential rainfall were happened, but false claim is filed by the complainant, so the complainant is directed to deposit that amount to this Forum within 15 days from the date of this order failing which penal action shall be started against him by starting penal procedure u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 for non-compliance of the order.