The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the complainants to prove the existence of insurance coverage at the time of the alleged incident and the exact date of the incident to support their claim.

Mr. Justice M.S. Rane, President—Complainants have brought this claim against the O.P./Insurance Company claiming sum of Rs. 8,66,333/- with interest being loss suffered by them in communal riot that broke out in Mumbai City in the year 1992 after demolition of Mosque (hereinafter complainant will be referred to as “complainants” and O.P. as “Insurance Company” for brevity’s sake).

Few relevant facts :

2. Complainants were carrying on business of transportation of goods by road and they had their office-cum-business and delivery godown in South Mumbai. Complainants were required to receive the goods for transportation, which they used to store in their godown at the address mentioned in the cause title for transportation to the destination.

3. That being so, they obtained fire policy from the Insurance Company for sum of Rs. 10 lakhs, which was in force from 11.12.1992 to 10.12.1993. Premium was for Rs. 5,530/-.

4. According to the complainants on 15.12.1992, they came to know that they were targeted by miscreants and looted goods stored in the godown at South Mumbai. The matter was, therefore, reported to the police about looting of the goods in the godown and estimated the loss to the extent of Rs. 8,66,333/- and copy of the FIR and certificate issued by the police authority have been annexed as exhibits to the complaint.

5. Complainant then lodged the claim for a sum of Rs. 8,66,333/- for the loss incurred by them due to riots in Mumbai City under the insurance policy mentioned above.

6. Insurance Company however repudiated the claim pointing out that at the relevant time when the alleged incident occurred, policy in question was not in force. In that it is stated the policy coverage period was from 11.12.1992 to 5.12.1993 and by referring to the police record and other material it is asserted that at the relevant time, the policy was not in force, as the earlier policy in question had expired on 5.12.1992 and between 5.12.1992 and 11.12.1992, the policy was not in force. It is pointed out that complainants have not adduced any evidence to prove that the incident had taken place on 15.12.2002.

7. For that purpose Insurance Company makes reference to the report rendered by their Surveyor, copies of police complaints, endorsement made on the policy, date of payment of premium by the complainant and referring to the dates and course of events, the Insurance Company has emphatically stated in the first instance that the date of incident mentioned as 15.12.1992 is not correct and the complainants have falsely mentioned the same being the date of occurrence of alleged incident for the purpose of claim.

8. O.Ps. have also denied the claim of the complainants with regard to loss asserting that no convincing evidence has been made available at the relevant time to justify or to support the claim of the complainant. Following points would arise for our consideration :

1. Do the complainants prove that O.Ps. were deficient in settlement of their claim by denying / repudiating the same ?

2. Whether the complainants prove their claim for sum of Rs. 8,66,333/- against the Insurance Company ?

3. What reliefs the complainants are entitled to get ?

Our answer to the above points are as under :

1. No.

2. No.

3. As per order.

Reasons :

9. Point Nos. 1 and 2 : To prove the case, apart from the pleadings in the complaint and the relevant correspondence and insurance policy, etc. the reference is also made to the affidavits of the Surveyor by the O.P. and the survey report rendered by the expert. The record of the lodging of the complaint in the form of FIR and certificate issued by the concerned police authorities have been also produced and relied upon.

O.Ps./Insurance Company have filed the affidavit through its Divisional Manager as also Surveyor.

10. It stands amply borne out that between 6.12.2002 and 11.12.2002 there was no insurance coverage as the earlier policy had expired on 5.12.1992. According to the complainants they obtained the insu