<br /> O R D E R <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> Brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the Op are that he had taken a General Insurance business policy called as shop keepers policy against fire. That he was carrying on the business of motor vehicle spare parts and had taken policy for Rs.4,00,000/- towards stock in trade. That on 14-07-2007 at about 11-45 pm his shop was burnt and stock in trade kept in the shop was totally burnt. A surveyor of OP surveyed the loss he suffered. Then he made a claim submitting all the bills and documents including Mahajar drawn by the fire extinguishing officials. In a settlement proposed OP had agreed to pay Rs.1,75,000/-. Whereas he had agreed for Rs.2,50,000/- but the same was not finalized. The OP has failed to reimburse the loss despite issue of legal notice and therefore has prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- against the Op with interest @ 24 % per annum. <br /> <br /> OP has appeared through his advocate and filed version interallia contending that the compliant is not maintainable and that stock in trade of the complainant kept in shop premises caught fire and was all burnt is far from truth. That their investigator and loss assessor have investigated into the fire incident visited the spot and while assessing the loss they noticed no documents to prove the purchases of spares and stock, the surveyor noticed steel racks in the shop were all empty and the materials that was scattered on the floor could be filled in three to four gunny bags. The people had extinguished the fire at initial stage and therefore the surveyor has recommended for repudiation of the claim of the complainant having found no proof of loss suffered by the complainant. Hence claiming the claim of the complainant is false has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and Administrative Officer of the OP have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective compliant and version. Complainant alongwith the compliant has produced a copy of trade license certificate, copy of the insurance policy, a copy of tax invoice, copy of fire extinguishing report with copy of legal notice, reply by Op and copy of estimate of loss prepared by the surveyor and the investigator. The counsel for the complainant has subjected the surveyor to the cross-examination. We have perused the written arguments of both the sides and perused the records. <br /> <br /> On considerations of the above, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that in the fire incident dated 14-07-2007 he has suffered loss of Rs.4,00,000/- due to destruction of stock in trade and that OP has caused deficiency in his service in not reimbursing the loss? <br /> <br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> Our findings are as under:-<br /> <br /> Point No: 1 answered in part holding that there had been fire incident in the shop of complainant’s premises but loss suffered as per the final order. <br /> <br /> Point No: 2:see the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS: POINT No:1:: <br /> <br /> This forum presided over by my predecessor are disposed of this compliant by its order dated 30-08-2008 by awarding compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- against the OP. The OP challenged the same before the Hon’ble state Commission in appeal NO: 2285/08 which came to be allowed by setting aside the order of the forum and the Hon’ble State Commission remanded this matter for fresh disposal. <br /> <br /> The fact that the complainant had taken a fire insurance policy insuring is stock in trade to an extent of Rs.4,00,000/- and that policy was in force as on the fire incident dated 14-07-2007 is not in dispute. But the claim of the complainant that he had kept goods worth more than Rs.4,00,000/- in his premises and in the fire incident dated 14-07-2007 that took place at 11-45 PM destroyed the entire stock in trade resulting in loss of Rs.4,00,000/- is very seriously disputed by the OP. <br /> <br /> The complainant in support of his claim that he had stocked goods worth more than Rs.4,00,000/- as on 14-07-2007 has not produced any documents like invoice, stock register or any proof for that matter to substantiate that contention. Complainant has only produced a copy of statement prepared by himself to show as if he had stock goods worth Rs.5,86,000/-. As against the claim of the complainant, the OP appointed an investigator and also a loss assessor who have after visiting the spot and investigation submitted report. The repost of the investigator reveal as if fire incident is the invent of complainant himself. The report of the loss assessor /surveyor discloses that the complainant had vacated the shop by the time the investigator visited the shop for non-payment of the rent to the landlord. It is further discloses that the complainant who claimed that he was doing business of Rs.2000/- per day did not produce in support of it any income tax return, sales tax return filed by him to the authorities and that the steel racks found in the premises were all empty and the things scattered on the floor if collected would not have filled more then 3 to 4 gunny bags and thereby the assessor has stated that the complainant did not produce and was not having any materials to prove that he had stock in trade more than Rs.4 lakh as on that day. The loss assessor considering all the aspects of the matter and damage of furniture, assessing the value of the salvage, assessed the total loss as Rs.86,676/- out of which deducted cost of salvage at Rs.5000/- , policy excess Rs.10,000/- and recommended reimbursement of Rs.70,676/- to the complainant. The complainant has not at all filed any objection to this report of the valuer. Though the surveyor is subjected to cross-examination but nothing has been elicited to dis-credit him as to the loss he has estimated and the report he has produced. It is established that the loss assessor estimated the loss in presence of the complainant himself. Therefore we do not find any reasons or justification for rejection of the report of the loss assessor. Copies of photograph produced by the complainant in our view do not substantiate the quantum of loss the complainant suffered. Considering the dimension of the shop measuring 13x14 feet., show that the complainant who was not in a position to pay the rentals of the shop regularly was not an assessee either for sales tax or income tax. His claim that he had stocked stock in trade worth more than Rs. 4 lakh cannot be believed. We by assessing the materials placed before us from all angle it is not possible to arrive to conclusion in support of the claim of the complainant. The complainant took insurance with effect from 01-05-07 which was n force till 30-04-2008, the fire incident had taken place on 14-07-2007 considering the materials collected by the loss assessor these appears to be no chance for incident of fire in that premises except with some intervention. We therefore finding no reason to reject the report of the loss assessor find no hesitation to hold that the loss assessed by the surveyor amounting to Rs.70,676/- is just and reasonable for which the complainant is entitled, to as such we answer point NO:1 accordingly and pass the following order. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed. OP shall pay Rs.70,676/- by way of reimbursement of the loss the complainant suffered within 30 days from the date of this order failing which OP shall pay interest <br /> @ 9 % per annum from the date of this complaint till the date of payment. <br /> <br /> OP shall also pay cost of Rs.3000/- to the complaint. <br />