SANTOSH KUMAR DIXIT Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 11.11.1992 passed by District Consumer Forum, Hardoi in Complaint Case No.275/1992.

(2.) The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant filed the complaint on the ground that he started a business of ready-made garments at Hardoi. He got the shop insured on 7.6.1991 for one year for a sum of Rs.20,000/-. In the night of 18/19 October, 1991 there was a fire in which the entire clothes were gutted. When the complainant opened his shop on 19.10.1991 at 10.30 a. m. he came to know of this incident. He got a report of this incident lodged in the police station on 20.10.1991. The Insurance Company was informed of this incident. A Surveyor was sent on 24.10.1991 who surveyed the spot and was satisfied that there was a fire in the shop. The Surveyor asked for some money which the complainant did not agree. He also refused to sign the papers which the Surveyor wanted him to sign. The complainant submitted a claim and when the claim was not settled the complainant gave a notice to the Insurance Company. As the claim has not been settled the complainant filed the complaint praying for Rs.20,000/- as loss occasioned to him along with Rs.5,000/- towards mental tension etc. and Rs.1,500/- on account of cost.

(3.) The case was contested by the Insurance Company, the opposite party. In the written version it was alleged that the Surveyor Sri Ajay Kapoor was appointed on 24.10.1991 who visited the spot and surveyed the shop. The Surveyor asked the complainant as to how the fire had taken place. When the complainant did not tell him the reason he became angry. It is wrong to say that the Surveyor demanded any money. It is further alleged that a letter dated 11.11.1991 was sent by the Insurance Company for getting the formalities completed. Another registered letter dated 9.12.1991 was also sent, in reply to which the complainant sent copies of the documents vide letter dated 27.12.1991. The Surveyor gave his report on 6.1.1992. According to the Surveyor the complaint of the complainant was fictitious as there was no loss of any kind in the shop. It is further alleged that the claim cannot be filed before the District Forum.