An insurance company cannot repudiate a genuine claim of the insured without assigning convincing and satisfactory reasons.

Mr. Justice G.G. Loney, President—In this complaint the insured has alleged that his policy claim for the loss caused to his shop due to fire has not been settled properly by the opposite parties. The admitted facts are that the complainant, a shopkeeper at Ambejogai insured his shop for Rs. 10,00,000/- for a period upto 10.4.90. During the subsistence of the insurance policy dated 31.12.89, the complainant’s shop was gutted due to fire on account of the short circuit. The complainant alleged that goods worth Rs. 1,04,626.20 ps. and furniture and fixtures worth Rs. 10,000/- were destroyed during the fire. The complainant alleged that he lodged the claim with the opposite party immediately and Mr. Milind Sangwikar was appointed as Surveyor. The Surveyor submitted his report but the opposite parties did not finalize his claim for a period of 17 months. The complainant alleged that he wrote several letters to the opposite parties and lastly on 21.9.90 served a legal notice claiming early settlement of his claim. According to complainant, his legal notice was not replied and no action was taken on his complaint but unilaterally the opposite parties repudiated the claim of the complainant by a letter dated 3.10.91 without assigning convincing and satisfactory reasons. The complainant, therefore, presented this complaint dated 10.6.91 and claimed Rs. 1,14,626.20 for the total loss and also claimed business loss amounting to Rs. 2,52,361.20 + Rs. 50,000/- towards mental sufferings. The complainant also claimed Rs. 10,000/- as costs.

2. The opposite parties did not file their written version within the stipulated time after the receipt of the notice from this Commission. The permission to extend the time for filing written version was sought and ultimately after delayed time, the written version was filed on 4.10.91. Inter-alia, the opposite parties admitted the insurance policy but denied the claim of the complainant. The Opposite Parties even denied the fact of fire and doubted the genuineness and correctness of the complainant’s claim. The opposite party also doubted the integrity of their Surveyor, Mr. Milind Sangwikar on the ground that he was known to the complainant. According to Opposite Parties, the claim of the complainant is liable to be dismissed.

3. We have heard the complainant through Shri M.K. Siddiqui, Advocate and opposite parties by Shri Upadye, Advocate. We have also carefully perused the Surveyor’s reports and the documents filed in this complaint. We have also gone through the pleadings of both the parties. According to O.Ps., viz., National Insurance Company, there was no fire due to short circuit. However, we find that Mr. Milind Sawangwikar, the Surveyor in his report dated 22.1.90 immediately after the incident had stated in para 7(c) cause of loss “fire due to short circuit”. It is also stated in the said report that the instance was identified and fire brigade vehicle had arrived to extinguish the fire. There is the certificate of Municipal Council Ambejogai to that effect. This report dated 21.1.90 has been tried to be nullified by appointing another Surveyor viz., Bhatawadekar and Company. The Survey Report of Bhatawadekar & Company dated 23.9.91 also stated in para 2 and para 3 that the duration of fire was for 40/60 minutes and that it was due to electric short circuit. However, Bhatawadekar & Co. tried to wriggle out the situation to support the Insurance Company stating that short circuit would not have occurred because the tube lights remained to be on condition. We very much doubt the genuineness of Bhatawadekar & Co.’s report which is rendered on 23.9.91 after a period of one year and nine months. We are surprised to know how after such a long period the tube lights were examined by Bhatawadekar & Co. Only on this version and slippery grounds, the claim of the complainant is set at naught. In our view, the opposite party was determined to deny the claim of complainant on flimsy, remote and unste