IMPORTANT POINT
If ignore default on part of complainants in intimating alleged loss to insurer, their failure to prove that they intimated shifting of bee keeping boxes and other equipments one village to another to insurer itself disentitled them from claim.

V.K.Jain, Presiding Member—Late Sh. Satpal Singh, complainant in Revision Petition No.2693/2011 and Sh. Jagmohan Singh, complainant in Revision Petition No.2694/2011 obtained separate insurance policies in respect of the bee keeping boxes and other equipments kept in village Kollian, Tehsil Dasuya. According to them, subsequently they shifted the aforesaid business to village Balaggan and informed the Insurance Company accordingly, by way of the letter dated 19.09.2001, alleged to have been received by the insurer on 20.09.2001. This is also their case that the boxes of bee keeping were completely burnt on 26.10.2001. The intimation of the loss was not given by the complainants directly to the insurer. Since they had taken a loan from The Dasuya Primary Co-op. Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., information of the loss was received by the insurer from the aforesaid Bank on 30.01.2002, more than three months after the alleged loss. The claim filed by them, however, was rejected, inter-alia, on the ground that they had not intimated the shifting of bee keeping boxes and other equipments to the Insurance Company.

2. Being aggrieved from the rejection of their claim, the complainants approached the concerned District Forum by way of two separate complaints. The complaints were resisted by the insurance Company, inter-alia, on the ground that (1) the shifting of the bee keeping boxes from Kollian, Tehsil Dasuya to Balaggan was not intimated to them by the complainants and (2) the intimation of loss was not given to them immediately after the occurrence, thereby contravening a mandatory term of the insurance policy issued to them.

3. The District forum, vide its order dated 22.12.2003, dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved, the complainants filed separate appeals challenging the order passed by the District forum. Mr. Satpal Singh died during the pendency of the appeal filed by him before the State Commission. His legal heirs did not file application for bringing them on record in place of the deceased. The aforesaid fact having not been brought to the notice of the State Commission, the appeals were decided on merits vide impugned order dated 31.03.2011 and were allowed. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission, the Insurance Company is before us by way of these two separate revision petitions.

4. A perusal of the insurance policies issued to the complainants would show that the petitioner Company had granted insurance to them only in respect of bee keeping boxes and other equipments kept in Kollian, Tehsil Dasuya. The complainants, therefore, were under an obligation to inform the Insurance Company before shifting the said boxes and equipments from Kollian, Tehsil Dasuya to Balaggan. The case of the complainants in this regard is that vide letter dated 19.09.2001, received by the Insurance Company on 20.09.2001, both of them had intimated the aforesaid shifting of the bee keeping boxes and other equipments to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company having denied the receipt of the aforesaid letter, it was incumbent upon the complainants to prove the same in accordance with law. The complainants, however, did not disclose the name of the official, who allegedly received the aforesaid letter in the office of the Insurance Company. The letter in question does not bear any diary number or even the seal of the Insurance Company. Had the complainants disclosed the name of the official, who allegedly received the aforesaid letter, it would have been possible for the Insurance Company to produce the said official in order to controvert the case set out by the complainants in this regard. That having not been done and there being no seal of the Insurance Company on the letter dated 20.09.2001, it would be difficult for us to accept that the said letter was delivered in the office of the Insurance Company. Had the said letter been actually received by the Insurance Company, it would have carried ou