Per Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member This consumer complaint is filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P./Insurance company repudiating the claim for loss/damage due to floods resulting due to heavy rains of 25th & 26th July 2005. Complainant runs Cyber Information Centre as per the agreement with M/s.Aptech Limited. They have in their stock computers and other peripherals related to it for imparting training. That stock is hypothecated with Indian Overseas Bank, Kalyan. The stock is also insured with O.P./Insurance company (herein after referred as “Insurance company”) under Standard Fire and Special Perils policy for the period 13/12/2004 to 12/12/2005. The offer cover was of `50 lakhs. Due to heavy down pour in between 25th to 27th July 2005, premises of the complainant were under water flood upto the height of 7-8 feet at the ground level and the height of flooded water from the basement to ground floor was around 17 to 20 feet. Complainant has sustained total loss of `75 lakhs, the intimation of which was given to the Insurance company, which in turn appointed surveyor M/s.Ashok Chopra & Company for inspection and assessment of the loss. Surveyor visited the site on 04/8/2005 and 13/9/2005. It is learnt by the complainant that the loss was assessed at `28,50,000/- by the surveyor. However, Insurance company by its letter dated 15/2/2007 repudiated the claim and, feeling aggrieved thereby, this consumer complaint is filed with a prayer to settle the dispute for the following amount: The insurance claim amount `28,50,000/- with 12% interest on the claim amount per annum since 26th July, 2005 `13,68,000/- Mental harassment ` 50,000/- Misc.Expenses ` 3,800/- ---------------- `42,71,800/- Insurance company resisted the claim as per its written version and denied the claim in toto. They have disputed the locus standi of Mr.Nandkumar Laxman Sonavane, who signed and filed this complaint claiming to be director of M/s.Cyber Information System Pvt. Ltd. The surveyor was shown only 51 computers and their composition did not tally with the purchase invoices produced by the complainant and so also the numbers did not tally. Necessary documents as demanded by the surveyor were not produced. There were other sister concerns of the complainant namely M/s.Platinum Computer System & M/s.Vaishali Vinayak Developers were functioning from the same location. Initially complainant shown address of shop no.2 in the basement, which was subsequently changed to shop no.1 as per communication dated 04/12/2005 where M/s.Platinum Computer System is also located. The building layout plan showed that complainant had occupied shop nos.4, 5, 6 & 9 and sharing shop nos.7 & 8 with M/s.Platinum Computer System. Insurance policy risk cover is for the shop, while the claim preferred is for office/institute. The invoices of purchase showed that they were not registered dealers. Thus, considering totality of the circumstances, they justified their action of repudiating their claim. Insurance company also disputed the statement as to limitation made by the complainant and asked the complainant to prove that the consumer complaint filed is within limitation. Considering the facts as disclosed from the pleadings of complainant and the O.P. and the material placed on record, following points arise for our consideration and we record our finding on each of them as under:- 1. Whether Mr.Nandkumar Laxman Sonavane has locus standi to file consumer complaint on behalf of M/s.Cyber Information System Pvt.Ltd.-the complainant? Answer : NO 2. Whether the complaint filed is within limitation? Answer: NO 3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of Insurance company by repudiating the insurance claim in question? Answer: NO 4. What order? Answer : As per final order. The title of the consumer complaint described Mr.Nandkumar Laxman Sonavane as its director and it is he, who signed and presented the consumer complaint. However, he failed to show and bring on record any resolution of the complainant company authorizing him to file such consumer dispute. Besides that the memorandum of association of the complainant company produced by the complainant shows names of Mr.Ajit Brojen Seal, Mr.Erio Dhunji Mistry and Mr.Suhas Shridhar Desai as the owner/director of the said company. Nowhere name of Mr. Nandkumar Laxman Sonavane appears therein. The information as reflected from memorandum of association of complainant company, supra, is further contradicted from the information supplied as per communication dated 19/10/2005 to the surveyor M/s.Ashok Chopra & Co. by Mr.Nandkumar Laxman Sonavane where for the complainant company Mr. Nandkumar Laxman Sonavane and Mr.V.V.Shinde were shown as directors. Thus, we find that Mr. Nandkumar Laxman Sonavane failed to establish his authority and locus standi to sign the consumer complaint and to file the same on behalf of company. Point no.1 for determination is answered accordingly in the negative. Cause of action for the insurance claim in question arises when the event occurred i.e. in between 25th to 27th July 2005. The consumer complaint was filed on 04/11/2008 much beyond the period of two years and without any delay condonation application and, therefore, under the Act same is barred by limitation. Furthermore, before assuming the jurisdiction, Consumer Fora is caste upon a duty to verify by itself whether the complaint is filed within limitation or not. Section 24-A of the Act bars the Fora admitting a complaint unless complaint is filed within two years from the date of its cause of action has arisen. Useful reference on the point can be made to the decision of the apex court in the case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah and Co. v/s. National Insurance Co. 2009 CTJ 951 (SC) (CP) and another and State Bank of India V/s. B.S.Agricultural Industries, II(2009) CPJ 29(SC). Therefore, we hold accordingly and answer point no.2 for determination in the negative. In the instant case, certainly, certain damage to the computers kept for training purpose appears to have been caused due to floods but these computers as inspected by the surveyor are of different specifications and make than what alleged to have been purchased by the complainant as per invoices submitted. Therefore, wrong information is supplied by Mr.Sonawane to the surveyor in support of the claim made. As earlier pointed out, Mr.Sonawane also failed to show his locus standi to act on behalf of the complainant company. Copy of the survey report dated 22/5/2006 was supplied to the complainant under the Right of Information Act 2005 by the Insurance company. They come to the conclusion on the basis of investigation that the insured place namely shop no.1 is neither occupied by insured nor by its sister concern. They also took into consideration several other factors and recorded conclusions/findings as under:- “Findings: From our inspections and then the consideration of all the details, documents and explanations submitted, it is obvious that the Insured had procured all their various Fixed Assets some time much earlier and were carrying on their business of Software Classes. Then, around October 2004, the Insured have fabricated and/or obtained false documents and/or made false accounting. These false and fabricated documents were used to justify the Loan that has been taken from their Bankers. However, then this loss took place and the Insured have still submitted these false and fabricated documents in support of their Claim. Considering the above, it is quite clear that it is now not possible to come to any reasoned conclusion as to the extent of the total manipulations. It is obviously also not possible to consider these documents in support of their Claim. Consequently, from all of the above, it clearly seems that : a) The Insured have not made complete disclosures of material facts and have, in fact, deliberately withheld facts to mislead, misguide and have clearly attempted gross misrepresentation. The above is to be considered against General Condition 1, which is : This Policy shall be voidable in the event of mis-representation, mis- description or non disclosure of any material particular. b) The Insured have not complied with specific requirements nor have they submitted the actual details, documents, etc., required and so have not proven their Claims. The above is to be considered against General Condition 6(i) b), which is: The Insured shall also at all times at his own expense produce, procure and give to the Company all such further particulars, plans, specification, books, vouchers, invoices, duplicates or copies thereof, documents, investigation reports (internal/external), proofs and information with respect to the claim and the origin and cause of the loss and the circumstances under which the loss or damage occurred, and any matter touching the liability or the amount of the liability of the Company as may be reasonably required by or on behalf of the Company together with a declaration on oath or in other legal form of the truth of the claim and of any matters connected. No claim under this policy shall be payable unless the terms of this condition have been complied with. c) The Insured seem to have made false statements in support of their Claim. The above is to be considered against General Condition 8 which is : If the claim be in any respect fraudulent, or if any false declaration be made or used in support thereof or if any fraudulent means or devices are used by the Insured or any one acting on his behalf to obtain any benefit under the policy or if the loss or damage be occasioned by the willful act, or with the connivance of the Insured, all benefits under this policy shall be forfeited. Considering the above, the Insured’s Claims under these Policies are voidable and forfeit under General Conditions 1, 6(i) b) & 8 of the Policy. 8) Recommendation: In our opinion, this loss is not admissible under the terms and conditions of the Policy and the matter may be closed after due consideration.” Repudiation of the claim by the Insurance company is based upon this investigation report and laying hands on the clause of the insurance policy inter-alia including supplying false and misleading information. Under the circumstances, since said repudiation cannot be branded as arbitrary or improper, Insurance company cannot be blamed for deficiency in service on its part. We hold and answer point no.3 accordingly for determination in the negative. For the reasons stated above and finding recorded on point nos.1 to 3 supra, we pass the following order:- ORDER The consumer complaint stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. | 
