RAVJIBHAI JETHABHAI PATEL PARTNER PARUL RICE AND PULSE MILLS Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal challenges the order dated 07.04.2005 of the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (in short, "the State Commission") in complaint case number 19 of 2000. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant (appellant before us) alleging deficiency in service against the United India Insurance Company Ltd (opposite party-OP) because the latter repudiated the complainant's claim for indemnification of the loss to his insured stock of paddy stored in the insured premises due to fire. For the sake of convenience, we hereafter refer to the parties according to their status before the State Commission.

(2.) The complainant was one of the partners of the firm, Parul Rice and Pulse Mills, which was engaged in milling paddy into rice and its sale. The goods (paddy and rice) dealt in by the firm were hypothecated with a local branch of the Corporation Bank and also insured with the OP for Rs.6 lakh against the peril of fire for the period 30.03.1999 to 29.03.2000. On 08.08.1999, there was an accidental fire in the godown where the stock of paddy was stored, resulting in total loss of the stock. The next morning, the complainant after being informed about the fire lodged a complaint with the Police and summoned the fire brigade, which could extinguish the fire after several hours. The complainant also informed the OP. The OP, in turn, appointed a surveyor who reported that the alleged loss being of more than Rs.5 lakh, the matter was not within his pecuniary jurisdiction to assess. The OP then appointed a second surveyor who carried out the survey, assessed the loss and submitted his report to the OP. According to the complainant, the OP agreed to settle the claim for Rs.5, 16,410/- and decided to issue the discharge voucher on 11.10.1999. By its letter dated 12.10.1999, the Corporation Bank also asked OP 1 to send the demand draft. However, since OP did not remit the amount, the complainant enquired into the matter and learnt that because of an anonymous letter, OP had decided not to admit the claim. The complainant was then constrained to issue a legal notice to the OP to which the latter gave evasive replies. Thus, alleging deficiency on the part of the OP, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission seeking a total compensation of Rs.11, 26,410/-, including the loss of paddy stock of Rs.5, 16,410/-.

(3.) In contesting the complaint, the OP admitted that based on the second surveyor's report the claim was in the final stages of consideration. However, before the process could be completed the OP received a signed complaint on 15.10.1999 alleging that the complainant had submitted a false claim by burning husk instead of paddy. The OP then appointed an investigator who enquired into the matter and reported in detail as to how a false claim had been filed. On the advice of the investigator, the OP also appointed a private forensic consultant, who after scientific investigation reported that the alleged fire could not have been caused by an electrical short circuit, as claimed, and that the quantity of paddy alleged to have been damaged by the fire could not have been reduced to such a small quantity of ash as was actually found in the insured godown.