JAIBHARAT HANDLOOM Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is complainant's appeal from the order of the D. F. , Ajmer dated 2.5.1996, dismissing his complaint for payment of the amount of damages caused to his insured goods as a result of fire, during the currency of the insurance policy, issued to him by the respondent Insurance Company for the period from 29.1.1992 to 28.1.1993. The sum assured was for Rs.2,25,000.

(2.) The case of the appellant was that he was dealing in handloom items which were duly hypothecated under Cash Credit Scheme of SBBJ Branch, Ajmer. On 15.10.1992 fire broke out in his business premises as a result of short circuit and subsequently damaged the insured goods. Estimating his loss, caused to his insured goods by fire, at Rs.1,50,000, he filed his claim with the Insurance Company. The respondent Insurance Company appointed Shri O. P. Maheshwari, Surveyor and Loss Assessor to verify the loss and assess the same. Shri Maheshwari inspected the site on the day of incident and estimated the loss caused to the goods of the appellant and fixtures and fittings at Rs.85,314. Although the Surveyor and Loss Assessor had submitted his report dated 6.2.1993 to the respondent Insurance Company but amount as proposed by him to be paid to the appellant for the loss sustained by him, was not paid. Instead the respondent Insurance Company appointed yet another Surveyor and Loss Assessor, viz. , Shri V. K. Bahl. In his report dated 6.8.1993 he advised the Insurance Company not to pay any amount to the appellant as he had not co-operated with him in the matter of assessment of his loss and did not supply any documents. The claim preferred by the appellant accordingly repudiated giving rise to the filing of the complaint by the appellant before the D. F. The D. F. dismissed the complaint of the appellant on the short ground that the case involved complex and complicated questions of facts and the same may be got adjudicated by the appellant in a Civil Court. Hence this appeal by the appellant.

(3.) It is not in dispute that the appellant had been dealing in handloom items for the last several years and in carrying on his business he had been receiving financial assistance from the financial institutions like Bank. Such facts have been clearly stated by Shri Maheshwari in his report dated 6.2.1993. On going through the report of Shri Maheshwari we gather that he had not only investigated the case in sufficient detail and valued the stock, as was burnt in the fire, on the basis of material available to him. The appellant had submitted a photo copy of the stock statement as submitted by him to the Bankers. The valuer had further taken note of the gross profit rate as was declared by the appellant from time to time in respect to his earned business profits. Shri Maheshwari had also gone through the invoices as made available to him and after having made such exercise he had assessed the total loss of insured goods at Rs.81,743. Then he had assessed the loss of burnt furnitures, fixtures and fittings at Rs.3,571. Thus Shri Maheshwari had arrived at the figure of Rs.85,314 which he recommended to be paid to the appellant. It may thus appear that Shri Maheshwari had prepared his report on the basis of data and material available to him and had given reasons in support of the findings recorded and conclusions arrived at by him in the determination of the amount payable to the appellant towards the loss suffered by him. There is no document on record to show as to on what basis and for what reasons the Insurance Company had not accepted the report of Shri Maheshwari and had thought it proper to appoint a second Surveyor.