The importance of documentary evidence over oral evidence in insurance claim disputes and the significance of the insurance company's approval and necessary amendments for any change of address in the policy.

ORDER

J.M. Malik, (P.M) - This order shall decide the above said four revision petitions, which arise out of the same order passed by the State Commission, dated 09.08.2010.

2. Sh. Ashik Jitendra Bhuta and Sh. Mehul Himmatlal Bhuta, the complainants, are the partners of Colorants, 222, Sagar Building, Prabhat Industrial Building, 102, W.E. Highway, Dahisar (W), Mumbai. They obtained a policy from the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the OP. During the subsistence of the said policy, in the month of July, 2005, there were torrential rains in Mumbai and Suburb. The godown of the complainant was flooded with water and it damaged the stock of goods stored in it, worth the sum of Rs. 7,51,952/-. The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs. 6,60,982/- vide his survey report dated 06.07.2005. However, the Insurance Co. repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that godown was different from the actual location of the unit/factory, as stated in the insurance policy.

3. Although, the complainant claimed a sum of Rs. 7,15,952/- along with interest @ 18% p.a., compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- and legal costs in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- before the District Forum, yet, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,60,982/- with interest @ 9% p.a., Rs. 7,000/- as compensation and Rs. 3,000/- as costs.

4. Aggrieved by that order, appeal was filed before the State Commission. The State Commission accepted the appeal filed by OP and dismissed the complaint. It also dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant, for enhancement of the claim.

5. We have heard the counsel for the complainant/petitioner. He argued that the petitioner had obtained two policies from the OP, one is against Burglary and the other is fire and special peril policy. The complainant shifted the premises from originally recorded location in the policy to the present premises, i.e., the godown and requested the Op to change the address of the insured premises. Accordingly, the OP affected the change of the shifted premises in Burglary policy. However, they failed to change the address in the fire and special peril policy. The complainant has also produced another copy of the letter which was given by the complainant to the OP for change of address in the location. However, this letter is the bone of the contention. The OP submits that they had never received this letter. There is not even an iota of evidence which may go to show that this letter was received by the OP.

6. Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the Surveyor had come to the shifted premises and surveyed the damages and, therefore, it is a sufficient proof that OP was aware of the change in the address. He argued that even surveyor's report supports the case of the complainant.

7. During the pendency of this revision petition, for the first time, the complainant/petitioner moved an affidavit of Sh. L.K. Savlani, Ex. Assistant Divisional Manager of the OP-insurance company. He stated that he was employed with M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., in the concerned Branch of the OP in Mumbai. He took VRS during the year 2004. He contended that the complainant disclosed recently, about the date of their meeting. He remembered that there were floods in the year 2005 and that the complainant's claim was rejected. He admitted that he has studied this file, provided to him, by the complainant. He has supported the case of the complainant. He explained that in the end of October, 2003, the OP had received two letters, i.e., one letter for each type of policy, i.e., burglary and fire and special peril, from the OP for effecting the change of locations of addresses. In the said policy from Kashmira Indl. Estate, Kashmira, Thane District to Vasai (E), District Thane and those letters were forwarded to the concerned departments to make necessary amendments. He was summoned by this Commission for cross-examination and clarification. To a court question, as to how he could remember