The insurer is entitled to repudiate a claim when discrepancies exist in the insured's evidence, affirming the validity of the surveyor's findings.

1. Heard Mr. Mohit Singh, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. J.P.N. Shahi, Advocate, for respondent - 1.

2. Himanshu Trading Company (the complainant) has filed the present appeal from the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh, dated 07.11.2007, dismissing Consumer Complaint No. 4 of 2007, filed by the complainant.

3. Himanshu Trading Company filed Consumer Complaint No. 4 of 2007, for directing The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (the Insurer) to pay (i) insurance claim of Rs.69,62,000 with interest @18% per annum, from the date of the loss till its actual payment, (ii) all the dues of Canara Bank on the complainant, (iii) Rs.5 lacs as the compensation for mental agony and physical harassment, (iv) Rs.50,000 as the cost of litigation and (v) any other relief which may be deemed fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with the complaint, are as follows:
(a) Himanshu Trading Company (the Insured) was a sole proprietorship concern and trading in distribution of soft drinks of Coca Cola brand, soda water and mineral water. Its Head Office was at Main Road, Defence Colony, Bhopura, Sahibabad and godown in a rented premises at village Bishanpura, Sector - 58, Noida, district Gautam Budh Nagar. The Insured had cash credit facility up to Rs.40 lacs from Canara Bank, branch Maliwara Chowk, Ghaziabad.
(b) The New India Assurance Company Ltd. (for short the Insurer) is a public insurance company, engaged in the business of providing insurance services of different nature. Himanshu Trading Company (the Insured) obtained Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy i.e. Policy No.321600/46/05/00085, for a sum of Rs.70 lacs, for the period of 22.5.2005 to 21.5.2006, on the Stock of all kind of soft drinks, Soda water bottles, Mineral water and / or related goods, stored / lying in the godown at village Bishanpura, Sector - 58, Noida, from the Insurer. The stock in godown was hypothecated with Canara Bank, as such, the Insured used to submit monthly statement of stock to the bank.
(c) On the intervening night of 1/2.10.2005, fire was broke out in the godown, due to electric short circuit. One Balraj, who had his dairy in the neighbourhood of the godown, noticed the fire at about 5.00 a.m. He informed Brijesh Kumar, an employee of the Insured, who was sleeping, in adjoining room. Brijesh Kumar informed Yash Pal Singh, the husband of the proprietor, on telephone. Yash Pal Singh informed Fire Service Station, Sector - 2, Noida, on 2.10.2005 at 9.01 a.m., from where, two fire tenders were deputed on the spot, one of which controlled the fire. Yash Pal Singh informed Police Station, Sector - 58, Noida about the fire incident, where it was registered vide Rapat No. 37 at 15.55 hours on 2.10.2005.
(d) The Insured informed Canara Bank on 2.10.2005, regarding the incident of the fire in the godown in writing and requested to inform the Insurer and set up insurance claim of the loss. Canara Bank informed the Insurer on 3.10.2005 about the fire incident in the godown of the Insured. The Insurer appointed Kejriwal & Company, Ghaziabad, on 3.10.2005, for preliminary survey. Kejriwal & Company, the Surveyor, inspected the godown of the Insured on 3.10.2005 at 3.00 p.m. and submitted his preliminary report dated 10.10.2005, mentioning that there was electric short circuit in the employee's room, due to which, wire got burnt up to godown switch, which fell down on the record. The fire was picked up by the paper record and took devastating nature and damaged the entire stock.
(e) The Insurer appointed KAYPSENS, Surveyor & Loss Assessor, Delhi, on 4.10.2005, for survey and assessment of the loss. The Surveyor inspec