Per Mr N Arumugam, Hon’ble Member

          This is an appeal against the judgment & order dtd. 14.05.2003 passed by Addl. District Consumer Forum, Nagpur in consumer complaint No. CC/98/271, dismissing the complaint.

          Facts of the case in brief are as under:

1.      Original complainant / appellant herein is a Proprietory concern. The complainant alongwith its banker – Bank of India, Nagpur took insurance policy bearing No. 014 / 48150502 / 01039193 from the o.p. / respondent herein - for the goods stock of its business for Rs.2.50 Lac for the period from 06.11.1993 to 05.11.1994. On 06-07 Sept. 1994, the building collapsed due to heavy rains and the stock got damaged. Hence, appellant / complainant submitted claim form alongwith relevant documents to the o.p. / respondent – Insurance Co for the compensation. After scrutiny of the claim, o.p. / respondent repudiated the claim on the ground that the insured violated the condition 5 (b) of the policy. Being aggrieved by this repudiation, complainant filed consumer complaint before the Forum.

3.      Being aggrieved by this order complainant preferred this appeal.

4.      We heard Adv. Mr J Vora for the appellant and Adv. Mr S M Paldhikar for the respondent – Insurance Co.

5.      Adv. Mr Voraj for the appellant argued that the building, situated on National Highway No.7 between LIC Square to Patni Automobile, was collapsed in the early morning of 7^th Setp.1994 due to heavy rains. As the entire stock of the appellant and also the furniture came under the debris and spread over the road, causing inconvenience to the traffic on the National Highway, the Civic authorities / Police removed the debris. Therefore, it was very difficult to the appellant to assess the damaged goods.

6.      Adv. Mr Vora further argued that in this incident the record, including stock register got destroyed. Hence, he could not produce the exact stock position on the date of incident. However, the stock position as on 01^st of July was obtained from the Bank and submitted its statement dtd.17.11.1994 to the Insurance Co.

7.      Adv. Mr Vora also argued that the appellant had submitted claim form as per the procedure prescribed by the respondent / Insurance Co.; but Insurance Co. illegally repudiated the claim. 

8.      It is further argued that Addl. District Consumer Forum, Nagpur without appreciating the facts dismissed the complaint. He finally prayed that the order passed by the Forum is not sustainable per se bad in law; therefore, it needs to be squashed and set aside.

9.      Adv. Mr S M Paldhikar for the respondent contended that the appellant / complainant did not produce the exact stock position on the date of incident and also could not show the damaged material to the surveyor or the officials of the Insurance Co. It is also contended that the claim was submitted to the Insurance Co. without requisite documents. Therefore, Insurance Co. vide its letter dtd.06.10.1994 asked the respondent / complainant to submit the claim form alongwith requisite documents. However, respondent / complainant remained silent for more than 17 months. However, to process the claim the respondent did not complete the formalities within one month, which is the violation of the terms & condition of the policy. Therefore, it is submitted that the Addl. District Consumer Forum, Nagpur on considering all the facts, has rightly rejected the complaint and the same should be maintained.

10.    After hearing both the parties, perusing the impugned judgement & order and all the documents available on record it is observed that there is no dispute about the insurance policy and the incidence that took place due to heavy rains in the night between of 6^th & 7^th Sep. 1994. However, it is seen from the record that there was inordinate delay in submitting the insurance claim to the respondent – Insurance Co. The claim Forum submitted by the respondent / complainant was not duly filled in, which could not show the stock position on the date of collapse of building. It is also observed that the damaged material was not shown to the surveyor of the respondent who was entrusted to investigate the incidence and assess the loss caused to the respondent. It is also seen from the record that the Police Panchanama, Fire Brigade report do not mention anything about the damaged material. It is further observed that the stock position on the date of incident was not reported to the Insurance Co. hence, it was very difficult for them to assess the loss caused to the appellant / complainant. Moreover, perusal of the stock statement received from the Bank of India shows the value of stock during 01.04.1994 to July 1994 but it doesn’t show the sale or purchase during the said period. Therefore, we are of the opinion that to consider the insurance claim it is very material to get the position of damaged stock. But, herein in this case respondent / complainant failed to produce the same and therefore, we find that Addl. District Consumer Forum, Nagpur has rightly rejected the claim and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgement & order of the Forum and therefore, no interference is warranted. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

          Hence, the following order:-

i.        Appeal is dismissed.

ii.       No order as to cost.

iii.      Copy of this order be furnished to the parties.