IMPORTANT POINT
Bogus claim cannot be allowed.

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member—The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the finalORDER dated 19.03.2012 passed in First Appeal No. FA/651/2010 by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, ‘State Commission’) whereby the State Commission allowed the said appeal filed by the Respondent by setting aside theORDER dated 04.02.2010 passed in Consumer Complaint No. CC/48/2009 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, ‘District Forum’).

2. The Complainant, Smt. Dhanlaxmi who is the owner of the Sri Satyanarayana Rice Mill, at Vermanda, Krishna District, availed insurance Policy from The New India Assurance Co. Ltd, the OP, for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/-, for the period from 03.03.2008 to 02.03.2009. Due to torrential and devastating rains on 8 - 9 August 2008, the said Rice Mill was completely damaged and it was confirmed by the M. R. O. The OP-1 was informed about the damage, and later submitted claim form with all relevant documents. After several strenuous efforts were made by the complainant, the claim was settled by OP-1, belatedly. Thereafter, he got issued a legal notice on 27.02.2009, but the claim was not settled and hence he filed the complaint and prayed for Rs.6,00,000/- towards the insurance claim, with interest @ 18% p.a. and Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and costs.

3. The District Forum allowed the Complaint and the OPs 1 & 2 were directed to pay Rs.4,49,000/- to the Complainant with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing (07.01.2009) and to pay Rs.2,000/- towards costs. The State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the OP and dismissed the complaint.

4. Aggrieved by theORDER of State Commission, the complainant preferred this revision petition.

5. The Counsel for OP vehemently argued that the Survey was conducted by a private person who assessed the loss at higher side, there was no flood on 08th, 09th and 10th of August, 2008 at the insured place, the policy does not cover the damage caused by rains, no premium was paid to cover the risk of floods and that the insured premises was in a dilapidated and collapsed condition. Hence, the claim was not admissible.

6. The Counsel for the complainant brought our attention to Ex.A2, A4, A5 and A6 issued by Revenue authorities, including that of the District Collector, Krishna District, Machilipatnam, and vehemently argued that those documents establish the genuineness, that there were floods during relevant time resulting in extensive damage to the Rice Mill. Further, he contended that Ex.B19 and B20 are based on scientific methods issued by Indian Meteorological Department; therefore theORDER of the District forum is sustainable.

7. After going through the evidence on record and the documents, we have given our thoughtful consideration to the fact that the Complainant did not examine her neighbours in support of her contention that on account of floods the property was damaged. The Ex.B19 and 20 issued by the Director, Meteorological Centre, Hyderabad Airport with regard to weather report at Gannavaram Observatory, situated near by the place where rice mill, were issued, based on scientific methods. The said documents reveal that there were thunderstorms with or without rain on the dates from 07.08.2008 at 08.30 hrs. to 10.08.2008, at 08.30 hrs.

8. We have also perused Ex. B.1, the non- agricultural tax receipt No. 0533019 dated 03.04.2008 which discloses that owner of the property is Chilkuri Raghavendra Rao. There is no document to show that the ownership of the property was transferred in her name. Hence, on the date of insurance, the property was in the name of Mr. Chilkuri Raghavendra Rao. Hence, the complainant, Smt. D. Dhanlaxmi, W/o Raghavendra Rao has no insurable interest at the time of the policy, it becomes void ab initio i.e., from the beginning. It is pertinent to note that the Complainant submitted that the Mill w