LAKSHMI MEDICALS REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR: ADAPA SURYA CHANDRA PRAKASA RAO Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD., REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is filed by the complainant challenging the order of the District Forum, Eluru at West Godavari in C.C.No.129 of 2006 whereof the complaint was dismissed holding that the right of the appellant stood extinguished with the operation of clause 6 of general conditions of the Insurance Policy issued by the respondent and that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that the appellant is a medical stores the stock of which was insured with the respondents under special peril policy for the period from 12.11.2003 to 11.11.2004. The appellant used to send monthly stock statement to Andhra Bank. The appellant has filed a civil case against his land lord in regard to the tenancy matter of the medical shop during pendency of which the landlord of the appellant forcibly demolished the shop on 10.9.2004 and thereafter a complaint was lodged with the police and also the matter was intimated to the respondent no.2 who had appointed a surveyor to assess the damage caused to the shop. The surveyor estimated no loss without any proper cause. The respondents repudiated the claim of the appellant on the ground that the appellant had not furnished the stock details in spite of the fact that he furnished the bank statement containing the stock details. The respondent no.2 filed counter which was adopted by the respondent no.1.

(3.) It was contended on behalf of the respondent no.2 that immediately on receipt of intimation from the appellant, they appointed a deputed a surveyor to assess the loss said to have been caused to the stock. On account of non-cooperation of the appellant even after several letters were addressed to him by the surveyor and the respondent, loss of stock could not be assessed. The appellant by letter dated 3.1.2005 informed the respondent that the police obstructed the surveyor from inspecting the premises. The surveyor submitted his report on 30.3.2005 stating these facts. Unless authenticated documents to prove the value of the stock were available, the loss of the stock could not be assessed. The appellant failed to produce the documents. The bank statement will not serve any purpose nor will it have any binding effect on the respondent to assess the stock.