The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the surveyor's report in claim settlement under the Insurance Act, 1938, Section 64-UM, as emphasized by authoritative judgments.

ORDER

Prem Narain, Presiding Member

1. This First Appeal has been filed by the petitioner Ravi Kumar, against the order dated 06.11.2009 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jharkhand, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in CC No.05 of 2008.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/complainant is engaged in the business of collection of Tendu leaf, which are used for biri making. He collects the Tendu leaf on permit given by the forest department. He insured his stocks with the respondent Insurance Company under Policy No.112007/337 with validity from 15.02.2007 to 14.05.2007. It is the case of the appellant that the fire broke out in his godown on the intervening night of 14/15 May, 2007 at about 10:30 p.m. and the total stock stored in the godown was lost in the fire. After intimation, the surveyor was appointed and surveyor submitted his report on 11.3.2008. The surveyor had assessed the loss of Rs.43,865/-.The appellant finally found out from the office of the opposite parties that his claim was repudiated and letter was sent on 29.04.2008.

3. Hence the complaint was filed before the State Commission bearing No.05/2008. The complaint was resisted by the Insurance Company on the ground that no proper care was taken by the appellant as more than one hour was spent in opening the lock of the godown. The State Commission after considering the submissions of both the parties and material on evidence dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 06.11.2009 as under:-

"13. Having considered all the facts and circumstances discussed above we find and hold that the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in the service against Opposite Party. It is further found and held that the case in present form is not maintainable. Accordingly, this complaint be and is dismissed with liberty to the complainant if advised to prefer his claim before appropriate forum as provided under the law. This order would not be treated as bar and Res Judicator for any purpose."

4. Hence the present appeal.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that there was a contract and agreement to sell with one party Nazrul Islam. However, later on that contract did not materialise and therefore, that stock was lying in the godown. It has been argued that though the surveyor has taken that stock into account, but has applied depreciation of 90% on this stock, which is not correct. The Tendu leaves do not deteriorate with time and the stocks are tuned over year after year. Thus, there was no justification for applying 90% depreciation. He further stated that the position can be matched with the forest department where Rs.11,00,000/- of royalty was due on the complainant. It is also to be considered that on plucking more leaves than allotted, 50% rebate is given on the royalty by the forest department. Thus, this pendency of Rs.11,00,000/- of royalty goes to clearly show that there was stocks as claimed by the complainant in the godown.

7. So far as the delay in opening lock of the godown was concerned, learned counsel pointed out that one key of the godown remains with the appellant/complainant and one key of locks remains with the forest department. Time was taken to procure the key from the forest department and when both keys arrived then only the godown could be opened. Thus, the delay in opening of the godown was not deliberate, but it was circumstantial. Opposite parties cannot deny indemnity only on this ground and the total loss has to be indemnified. Learned counsel for the appellant further asserted that though the fire tenders arrived in the early morning of 15.05.2007, but it is a fact that fire broke out before 12 o Clock in the midnight before the Insurance could have expired. Thus, the claim is genuine and the incident has occurred within the validity of the policy.

8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Compan