The case of the complainant in a nutshell is that the complainant that the predecessor of the complainants have an Insurance Policy being no.
51250/11/14/010000038 of his business namely “Ganesh Chemicals” . The said Purusottam Lal Agarwal sent an application before this OP no.2 on 10.9.2015 for relaisation claim from the oP no.1 as the articles described in the petition has been damaged due to flood. Thereafter, on 21.4.2016 the predecessor of the petitioners died . As such the petitioner are the partners of the said business, accordingly this petitioners filed this instant petition before Ld. Court for obtaining the damage of good’s claim from the oP no.1. The further case of petitioners is that Opno.2 enquired the matter of flood and the justification of the petition for claim of the petitioner. The matter of claim was enquired by OP and at the time of enquiry the petitioner submit all relevant documents about their claim and also notice the articles damaged due to flood. The Op no.1 assured that the claim of the petiti0oner is absolutely right and he will obtain claim. As the OP did not consider the claim of the petitioner for damage the right of the petitioner became cloudy on and from 22.3.16 finding no other alternative your petitioner file this instant case.
Op no.1 contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the OP is that , they appointed CMA
Sourent Chatterjee, Surveyor, Loss assessor and investigator for survey work and after proper enquiry/survey submitted the first survey report dated 6.11.2015 and after such submission when the insured submitted some documents the said surveyor submitted his addendum dated 6.2.2016. During survey it was clearly gathered that the insured purchased damaged paints and thereafter reprocessing the same by mixing and repacking were sold by the insured. During such survey the insured categorically confirmed that the permanent keeping of business materials on the open yard and doing business of salvage materials from auction sale. The surveyor clearly made the observation to treat the claim as “no claim”. On receipt of such survey report eh Op no.1 sent a letter to the insured on 3.12.2015 intimating about the closure of the file as “No claim”. Hence, the oP no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case.
The Op no.2 contested the case by filing Written version denying inter alia all material allegations. The positive case of the oP no.2 is that as per advice from the OP no.1, he conducted survey at the complainant business unit namely ‘Ganesh Chemicals’ inter alia making physical inspection/verification/inspection of available documents. Thereafter, has formed his bona fide opinion and submitted
independent survey report as per provision of Section 64 UM of the Insurance Act 1938 to Op no.1 marked “ISSUED WITHOUT PREJUDICE” . The same cannot be challenged before a Consumer Court. The OP no.2 prays for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainant filed photo copy of collection receipt cum adjustment voucher, photo copy of standard fire and special perils policy, photo copy of policy schedule for burglary (single insurance). Complainant filed Evidence in chief and WNA. Both the Ops filed Written version. Op no.1 filed W.N.A.
Upon pleadings, Written version and the documents filed by all the parties the following points are framed for proper adjudication of this case.
Points
- Whether the petitioner is a Consumer ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the oP ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS
All the points are taken together for easiness of discussion.
It appears from the record that the complainant did not adduce any evidence regarding the article damaged by the flood or any other reason. No evidence has come forth from the complainant’s side for which the oP was unable to consider the prayer which was repudiated at last. Inspite of wanting the required documents relating to the stock of the articles and nature of the articles and quantum of the articles no evidence has been placed before this Forum. Op also contended that they did not get any related documents regarding those substances alleged to have been damages by the flood. Accordingly, we are helpless to do anything for the complainant. Even by stretch of imagination no one can hold regarding any case if there is no description of the fact constituting the cause of action . Accordingly, the case is not proved for wanting of adequate evidence and thus the case fails. Hence it is –
Ordered
That the CC no. 109 of 2016 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
Let a copy of this order be made over to the parties free of cost.
