The insurer's repudiation of claim was upheld due to lack of evidence proving flood damages.

1. Heard Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. R.B. Shami, Advocate, for the respondents.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, dated 19.12.2012, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 172 of 2001, partly allowing the complaint for Rs.90,577 for loss / damages, Rs.5000 for the harassment and Rs.1,000 as the cost.

3. Giridhar Sampat Lanjewar (the Insured) filed Consumer Complaint No. 172 of 2001, for insurance claim of Rs.10,22,202 i.e. Rs.56,350 for damage of the building, Rs.92,200 for damage of plant and machineries, Rs.8,70,152 for damages for stock of the grains and rice and Rs.3,500 other expenses), cost of the litigation and any other relief, for which he was entitled. It has been stated in the complaint that the Insured was carrying on the business of rice milling, in the name of Santosh Rice Mill at Tumsar, district Bhandara. The Insured was granted financial assistance by Bhandara Urban Co - operative Bank Ltd. due to which, he had to submit Stock Statement to the Bank in every month, which used to verify it. The Insured obtained an Insurance Fire Policy - C, being Policy No. 1160302/0667/2000, effective from 31.3.2000 to 30.3.2001, in respect of the building, plant & machineries and stock of the rice mill, for total coverage of Rs.26,00,000. During 16.7.2000 to 20.7.2000, there were heavy rains, thunders and storms in Tumsar taluka. Goverdhan Tank situated in the locality of Santosh Rice Mill. Due to heavy rain, Goberdhan Tank was fully filled up and its wall was broken. As such the water of this tank was suddenly spread resulting in heavy flood in the locality. The water of the said tank entered into premises of Santosh Rice Mill and caused heavy damages to the building, plant & machineries and the stock of grains and rice, kept in the mill. The Insured immediately informed branch office of the Insurer on telephone, personally and through letter dated 19.7.2000 to 22.7.2000. Insurer appointed P.C. Gandhi & Associates, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, Nagpur, for survey and assessment of the loss on 24.7.2000. Mr. Sandip Mashru, the Surveyor inspected Rice Mill on 25.7.2000. He took photographs of the damaged articles and stocks. He collected statement of Stock Register, the vouchers of monthly purchase of paddy and sale of the rice, estimates of the repairing costs of the building, plant and machineries. The Insured submitted claim form on 7.9.2000, before Branch Manager, claiming total loss of Rs.10,22,202. Subsequently the Surveyor asked for some more papers, which were supplied on 18.9.2000, through registered post. The Surveyor wrote a letter to the complainant dated 30.9.2000, stating that the damage was caused due to seepage as the rain water entered the premises of the rice mill through the gaps between roof and the building as well as through the windows. The Insured then met with the Surveyor and also with the Branch Manager. Then Surveyor demanded gratification for changing the report, which was not accepted by the Insured. The Insured wrote letter dated 7.11.2000 to opposite party - 1 and 2 and requested for settlement of his claim. Thereafter, various correspondences were made orally as well as in written but nothing was done. Then the Insured gave a legal notice dated 24.1.2001 but no reply was given by the opposite parties. On these allegations, the complaint was filed.

4. After remand, the Insurer contested the case and filed their written statement. They stated that from the photographs taken by the Surveyor on the spot and his report dated 20.12.2000, it was proved that damages to stock was caused, due to seepage, as the rain water entered the premises of the rice mill through the gaps between roof and the building and through the windo