1.      The present Appeal has been filed against the order dated 16.05.2014 in CC No. 127 of 2000 of the State Commission.

2.      The brief admitted facts of the case are that Appellant / complainant ( hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) who is a private limited company, was holder of an insurance policy covering stocks of raw material, semi- finished and finished goods, packing material and insurance cover was of Rs.78.00 lacs.  The insurance policy was issued

-2-

for the building, lab equipments and stocks lying at Plot No.1, Shangrilla Industrial Estate, Vrajeshwari Road, Chinchpada Gokhivare, Vasai ( East), District Thane.  A fire took place on 14.05.1997 during the existence of the insurance policy.  The complainant filed claim for a sum of Rs.15,67,055/- with the insurance company.  The surveyor was appointed who after survey of the insured premises calculated the loss at Rs.1,55,288/- and submitted its report on 20.06.1998. The complainant raised certain objections to this report and thereby, the insurance company requested the surveyor to relook in his report.  Surveyor after reassessing the whole case, submitted Addendum to the report on 14.07.1999 and assessed the loss at Rs.1,96,170/-  less salvage which was assessed by him at Rs.10,569/- less policy excess of Rs.2500/-.  Despite the two reports of the surveyor, whereby the loss was assessed to certain amount, insurance company vide its letter dated 14.10.1999 repudiated the entire claim of the complainant on several counts which are mentioned in the said letter.  Aggrieved, the complainant filed the complaint before the State Commission.

3.      The claim was contested by the insurance company wherein it was submitted that complainant had failed to submit the documents necessary for assessment of the damages despite several

-3-

communications of the surveyor.   It was further submitted that reinstatement clause was not incorporated in the policy and several bills in respect of stocks particularly of the sister concern were not reflected in the record mentioned in the complaint. When the surveyor visited the premises of the sister concern, namely, Royal Enterprises, M/s Roopam Laboratories, M/s Neospectra Polymers and Chemical Ltd., the surveyor found that these companies were not available at the addresses given in the communication by the complainant.  Several bills which were furnished by the complainant also found to be related to the period subsequent to the incident of fire. Certain bills were also found to be fake as they were in the name of non-est sister concern.  Complainant also disposed of the salvage without the permission of the insurance company.  It is submitted that due to all these reasons, the claim was repudiated and it is justifiable.

4.      Parties led their evidences before the State Commission and State Commission after perusing the record and going through the evidences, documents and written submissions and after going through the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties, issued following directions:

-4-

“1.     Complaint is partly allowed.

2.      Opponent / Insurance Company is directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.1,55,288/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint till realization.  Rest of the prayers stand rejected as not specifically granted.

3.      Parties to bear their own costs.

4.      Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.”

5.      Aggrieved of this direction, the present Appeal has been filed by the complainant wherein it is submitted that impugned order has been passed without application of the mind and findings are contrary to the material on record.  It is submitted that State Commission has failed to consider that there were no sister concern but those were independent companies and that they had changed their addresses but they were having the letter heads of the previous addresses.  It is also argued that State Commission had also given a wrong findings qua the reinstatement of plant, machinery and stock and also wrongly rejected the report of the Department of Chemical Technology, University of Mumbai which had given report regarding the damaged stocks and the polythene material  It has further been argued by the complainant that State Commission had also failed to consider Addendum of the survey report wherein surveyor had modified the loss on re-assessment and

-5-

found  the damage suffered by the complainant to the tune of Rs.1,96,170/-.  It is further argued that salvage was disposed of only after one year of the incident.

6.      Counsel for the insurance company has argued that impugned order is a well reasoned order and is based on the evidences which had been produced before it and, therefore, the Appeal has no  merit and liable to be dismissed.

 7.     I have heard the argument of the learned counsel for the parties and  have perused the record.  As regards the reinstatement value is concerned,  counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments has admitted that complainant  has not submitted any document on the basis of which reinstatement value could have  been assessed.  No bills of repair etc  had been submitted to the surveyor and also same were not filed before the State Commission. The findings of the State Commission on the issue of reinstatement, therefore, is based on the documents and the evidence filed on record and cannot be said to be perverse or illegal.

 8.     As regards the findings relating to non submission of the record, bills etc of the stocks of the sister concern lying in the insured premises

-6-

is concerned, counsel for the complainant admits that no evidence  has been filed that the documents relating to the stocks of sister concern was submitted to the surveyor. Al-though in the argument it is argued that stocks lying with the complainant were not of the sister concern of the complainant but there is no such contention in the complaint.  During the course of arguments when the counsel was asked to show the documentary evidence produced by it before the State Commission in order to prove the value of the stocks of the sister concern which were lying in its premises, counsel for the complainant submits that no evidence has been produced before the State Commission and no document was filed with the surveyor.  He has, however, relied on the CA report. CA report without the supporting documents has no validity in the eyes of law and, therefore, has been rightly rejected by the State Commission.  It is also brought to my notice by the counsel for the insurance company that CA report has itself considered the bills of the subsequent period to the date of incident.   Since the complainant has failed to bring to my notice any piece of evidence qua this issue which was there on record but had not been considered by the Sate Commission, it cannot be said that findings of the State Commission on

-7-

this count is perverse. Findings are squarely based on the evidences which were available to the State Commission.

9.      Counsel for the complainant has also argued that Sate Commission has wrongly rejected the certificate of Department of Chemical Technology, University of Mumbai.  When enquired as to how this report has been proved, counsel  has submitted that report has been proved by producing the report itself.  Since affidavit of the expert is not accompanying the said report, the authenticity of the report remains unproved and, therefore, State Commission had rightly not relied on unproved report and rejected it.

10.    However, the State Commission has ignored one fact that the surveyor has submitted an Addendum wherein it has calculated and assessed the loss at Rs. 1,96.170/- minus salvage and the policy excess.  On this count, I found the findings of the State Commission erroneous.

11.    I, therefore, partly allow the appeal and modify the impugned order. Following directions are issued:

1.      The Appeal is partly allowed and the insurance Company is directed to pay to the complainant sum of Rs. 40,882/- (Rs.1,97,170 –

-8-

Rs.1,55,288/- already paid and calculated after deducting Rs.10,569/- towards salvage and Rs.2500/- towards policy excess) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint till realization.

2.      No order as to costs.