1.                     The brief history of the case of the complainant is that he is having an electronic repairing shop namely “M/s. Susanta Electronic” at Panasput Bagra with recommendation of DIC, Koraput under PMEGP and financed by Andhra Bank, Jeypore.  The shop was duly insured with OP vide Shopkeepers Insurance Policy No.260503/48/13/34/00000070 valid from 04.11.2013 to 03.11.2014.  It is submitted that the said shop was caught fire owing to short circuit on 22.1.2014 and on the impact of fire, the electronic items     like Mobile Display, batteries,  cabinet, furniture etc. were burnt which costs Rs.1, 50,000/-.  It is submitted that the Asst. Fire Officer, Jeypore issued Certificate No.174/Jeypore dt.24.1.2014 and the matter was intimated to Sadar PS, Jeypore vide SDE No.138 dt.07.02.2014 wherein both the officers clearly mentioned that the electronic materials worth Rs.1, 50,000/- were burnt in the fire accident.  It is further submitted that the complainant claimed the loss before the OP but the OP remained silent till date.  Thus alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP, he filed this case praying the Forum to direct the OP to settle the claim at Rs.1, 50,000/- and to pay Rs.50/- per day towards compensation from 22.1.2014 to the complainant.

2.                     The OP filed counter denying the allegations of the complainant but admitted about Shopkeepers Insurance Police Vide No.260503/48/13/34/00000070 valid from 04.11.2013 to 03.11.2014 obtained by the complainant from the OP.  The OP raised preliminary issue of limitation stating that the alleged fire accident took place on 22.1.2014 and the present case is filed on 16.3.2016 i.e. after 2 years of accrual of cause of action.  It is contended that the complainant took 15 days time after accident to inform the Police regarding the accident and the complainant has not explained the cause of delay properly in the complaint petition.  It is also contended that the complainant has not submitted intimation letter, claim form along with documents before the OP and he has not disclosed whether he had availed commercial electricity connection to his shop.  The OP also further contended that the loss assessed by the Fire Officer at Rs.1, 50,000/- is not acceptable in absence of bills, vouchers in respect of purchase of alleged materials and stock statements of the shop.  Thus denying any deficiency in service on its part, the OP prayed to dismiss the case of the complainant.

3.                     The complainant has filed certain documents along with written argument.  The OP also filed certain documents along with affidavit in support of his case.  Heard from the parties through their respective A/Rs and perused the materials available on record.

4.                     In this case, the Shopkeepers Insurance Policy vide No.260503/48/13/34/00000070 valid from 04.11.2013 to 03.11.2014 issued by the OP in favour of the complainant is an admitted fact.  The complainant stated that on 22.1.2014 at about 11.30 PM fire accident took place  due to short circuit and on intimation, the fire brigade extinguished the fire and opined that due to ravage of fire the property worth Rs.1, 50,000/- along with documents gutted.  The complainant submitted that he intimated the fact to the OP as well as Sadar PS, Jeypore and the OP is not at all interested to settle the claim.

5.                     The OP stated that the complainant has not submitted the intimation letter and claim form before it.  On perusal of record it was found that no copy of intimation letter or claim form is filed by the complainant as no copy of said documents is available on record.   The complainant has also not filed copy of SDE of Fire Officer, Jeypore vide No.174 dt.24.1.2014.  The copy of SDE is vital in order to know the quantum of gutted property due to fire accident and their position.  In absence of such report, we failed to know whether the property reduced to ashes or residue left and as to how the Fire Officer assessed the loss.

6.                     The complainant stated that all books and registers damaged in the fire.  If this is so, the complainant would have procured the copy of vouchers in some extent from whom he had purchased the materials but the complainant has not filed a single scrap of paper regarding stock available at his shop during accident.  No affidavit from any of his customers is filed showing that due to fire accident his mobile handset gutted or any kind of asset damaged.  Hence estimate of loss by Fire Officer is far from belief.

7.                     The OP stated that the complainant filed FIR after 15 days of accident.  It is seen that the fire accident took place on 22.1.2014 and the complainant intimated about the accident to the PS on 07.02.2014.  The complainant stated that soon after the accident he took his father to Visakhapatnam for medical checkup and after returning, he filed FIR before the Police on 07.2.2014.  In support of his said averment, the complainant has not filed any document regarding his father’s treatment at Visakhapatnam during that period.  As per policy condition, the fact of accident should have brought to the knowledge of insurer in writing as well as to the Police forthwith but in this case the complainant has committed delay in filing FIR and as per policy condition the complainant has not claimed his loss within 14 days of accident.

8.                     The OP also stated that at the time of accident there was no electricity connection to the shop of the complainant.  The complainant has filed copy of electricity bill of domestic nature in support of his case.  The shop of the complainant is a commercial unit but no bill in the name of his shop is filed by the complainant.  Further the OP stated that the case of the complainant is barred by limitation.  It is seen that the fire accident took place on 22.1.2014 and this case has been filed on 16.03.2016 resulting delay of one and half months.  As per settled principle of law, the Forums under C. P. Act are to see the limitation of the cases scrupulously.  In this case delay of 45 days has not been properly explained in any manner and such delay could not be condoned.  Thus the case of the complainant is hit under limitation.

9.                     In view of above facts and circumstances, we find no merit in the allegations of the complainant and as such need to be dismissed.  In the result, we dismiss the case of the complainant but without costs in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

(to dict.)