ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. LAXMAN G KORGOANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . A.K. Raina, learned Advocate appearing for the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (appellant) addressed arguments at length and took us elaborately to the materials produced in evidence in the case. His contention is that the finding entered by the State Commission that the respondents building which had been insured by the appellant had not suffered any damage on account of flood or inundation or any cause of the nature mentioned in the policy of insurance is not supported by the materials available on record. He relied very strongly on two certificates issued by the Tehsildar, Kudal and Police Patil, Village Pawashi which according to him establish that there was no heavy rain in the locality on the date on which the building was said to have been damaged. We have gone through the two documents relied on by Mr. Raina and we do not consider it safe to rely on them for the simple reason that neither the Tehsildar nor the Police Patil could have kept any record of the rainfall in the locality during the previous year so as to remember exactly where there was any heavy rainfall in the particular area on the relevant date. Moreover, it is stated before us by Mr. Ajit Bhasmi, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent that these officials had given certificates to the opposite effect to the complainant herein and it was thereafter that the Insurance Company approached the same authorities for the grant of certificates. In these circumstances, the value to be attached in the statement contained in the two documents gets considerably diminished. As stated already, we are not inclined to place any reliance on these two documents. The State Commission has already given valid and sound reasons in support of the conclusion that the damage to the building was caused because of over -flowing of water and inundation due to heavy rains and also seepage of water to the foundation thereby resulting in cracks being caused to walls of the building. We find no reason to differ from the said conclusion recorded by the State Commission. In the circumstances, the award of compensation to the complainant by the State Commission was fully justified and does not call for any interference in appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed. -