CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE





FIRST APPEAL NO.998/2007 Date of Filing:-09/08/2007

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.108/2006 Date of Order:-26/08/2009

DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, RAIGAD-ALIBAG



Shri Amol Dattatraya Mone,

R/at Post-Taluka-Mangaon,

District-Raigad ... Appellant (Org. Complainant)

-Versus -



1) Branch Manger,

Oriental Insurance Company Limited,

Head Office, Oriental House, Asaf Ali Road,

New Delhi



Branch Office,

38, ‘Yashodhan’,

Opp.Union Bank of India,

At Post-Taluka-Mangaon,

District-Raigad-402 104 ... Respondent (Org. Opponent)





Corum :- Mr.P.N.Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member,

Mrs. S.P.Lale, Hon’ble Member.



Present :- Appellant present in person

Mr.J.S.Chandnani, Adv. for the Respondent.



O R D E R

Per Mr.P.N.Kashalkar,Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member



1) Being aggrieved by the dismissal of complaint No.108/2006 by the judgment dated 5/6/2007 delivered by the District Consumer Forum, Alibag, the original complainant has filed this appeal.

2) Facts to the extent material may be stated as under:



3) The complainant is running medical store at Mangaon, District-Raigad. It is styled as M/s.New Mahalakshmi Medical Stores. He sells medicines in his shop. According to him, he had purchased shopkeeper’s Insurance Policy from respondent/insurance company for the period to 23/2/2005 to 22/2/2006. He had paid premium of Rs.1,965/- while purchasing the policy. In July-2005, there were heavy rains in District Raigad. There was heavy flood at Mangaon. The flood water entered in the shop of the complainant and he suffered huge loss. The medicines, cosmetics etc. was washed or damaged in the said heavy floods. He therefore suffered loss of Rs.1 Lakh to Rs.1,50,000/-. The complainant got recorded Panchanama from Tahsildar, Mangaon. After Panchanama, he cleaned his medical shop and started running the shop. On 29/7/2005, he filed claim petition with the insurance company. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim with the endorsement “without prejudice”. The insurance company had earlier appointed Surveyor to assess the loss caused to the complainant. Surveyor did not recommend any loss to the complainant and therefore the claim was repudiated by the insurance company and as such complainant filed consumer complaint claiming damages of Rs.1,25,000/- under the policy and also claimed interest thereon from the insurance company.



4) The O.P./insurance company filed written statement and contested the complaint. The O.P. pleaded that the complainant is running medical shop but in the claim form complainant is claiming loss on account of cosmetic articles and biscuit packs having being spoiled in the heavy floods. The insurance company therefore pleaded that it was not certain as to what sort of business complainant was having. The O.P. further pleaded that the complainant had not produced evidence to show that he had kept certain stock of medicines in his shop and he was entitled to sell medicines in his shop. The complainant had not produced any record, bills etc. to arrive at the exact loss suffered by the complainant. The Panchanama produced by the complainant was recorded by the Gram Panchayat but it was not having stamp of Gram Panchayat or date of recording of Panchanama. The Surveyor was appointed to assess the loss of the complainant. Surveyor found that no loss was found to have been sustained by the complainant because there was no water mark found inside the shop in question. There was no evidence of flooding on the walls inside the shop and he did not observe any damage to the stock and property. Hence, the Surveyor recommended that as there was no loss, claim was not payable. Acting upon the survey report, the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant. The O.P. pleaded that complaint as such should be dismissed being totally false complaint.



5) Relying upon the affidavit and documents placed on record by the rival parties, the Forum below recorded finding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company and since Panchanama of Gram Panchayat, Mangaon produced by the complainant was not bearing even date of Panchanama, the said Panchanama could not be acted upon and could not be read in evidence. The survey report also was against the complainant. No stock statement, no photograph showing level of watermarks on the walls was produced by the complainant and therefore the Forum below held that complainant had made false allegations against the insurance company and the Forum found repudiation of the claim made by the insurance company was proper and therefore it was pleased to dismiss the complaint. Aggrieved thereby, this appeal has been filed by the original complainant.



6) Upon hearing appellant in person and Mr.J.H.Chandnani, Adv. for the insurance company and even after going through the written arguments placed on record by the appellants, we are finding that the order of dismissal of complaint made by the District Forum is just and proper. What is important to note is that fact that Surveyor clearly mentions that he did not find any loss sustained by the complainant in the floods of July-2005. Survey report is very clear on this aspect of the matter. Moreover, the Forum below rightly discarded the Panchanama prepared by Gram Panchayat, Mangaon. Such Panchanama are prepared at the instance of government to assess extensive damage caused to the affected citizens so that government gives some ex gratia amount to help affected persons to tide over the crisis. That Panchanama can not be read in evidence to assess the loss sustained by the complainant in the floods. When he is filing consumer complaint against the insurance company, strong proof of loss of property or stock in the floods is required to be placed on record. The Panchanama prepared for giving ex gratia amount by the government can not be acted upon to hold that the complainant/appellant suffered that much damage in the floods. Moreover, the said Panchanama was not bearing date of the Panchanama and the complainant in his complaint clearly mentioned that he got prepared Panchanama of the loss sustained by him from Gram Panchayant, Mangaon. Taking all this factors into account, the Forum below rightly dismissed the complaint and we uphold the said dismissal. We are finding no merit in the appeal. Hence, the following order.



O R D E R



1) Appeal stands dismissed.

2) Parties are left to bear their own cots.

3) Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.







( Mrs.S.P.Lale ) (P.N.Kashalkar )

Member Presiding Judicial Member
Malve/-