Sri Debasis Bhattacharya, Member

This appeal is directed against the Order dated 12-09-2014, passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas (for short, District Forum), in C. C. No. 640/2013, whereby the instant complaint case has been dismissed.  Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, Complainant thereof has preferred this appeal.

In short, case of the Complainant, is that, on 17-04-2013, a devastating AILA like storm caused severe damage to his office building and he duly communicated such fact to the OP Insurance Company.  On the basis of such information, one Surveyor was deployed by the OP Insurance Company, who visited the spot on 25-04-2013 for assessing the loss.  Later on, however, the said Surveyor opined that the damage to the concerned building did not occur due to storm, but it was on account of normal wear and tear and poor maintenance of the same.  His repeated pleadings with the OP Insurance Company went in vain.  Being pushed to the wall, thanks to the arbitrary act of the concerned Surveyor as well as the OP Insurance Company, the Complainant approached the Ld. District Forum for relief.

In its defence, it is contended by the OP No. 1 by filing a W.V. that, upon discreet assessment of the loss, the statutory Surveyor concluded that the actual damages suffered by the office premises building was not due to the storm and lightening.  As the Complainant failed to prove the Surveyor wrong by adducing cogent documentary proof in support of his claim, it repudiated the claim.

We are to consider in this appeal, as to whether or not the impugned order suffers from any legal incongruity.

Decision with reasons

It is the settled position of law that the burden of proof lies with the claimant, Appellant in the instant case.  The Appellant, as it appears, furnished photocopy of a fortnightly local vernacular newspaper, namely, “Anchalick Darpan”, a certificate issued by the Maheshtala Municipality and the statement of one Laskar Rajjak Ali in support of his claim. 

It appears from the email correspondences exchanged in between the concerned Surveyor and the Appellant that the former had asked the latter to establish the claim with necessary technical logic/evidence, but seemingly, the Appellant did not fulfill his demand prompting the Surveyor to submit his report based on his own assessment.  In this regard, it may not be out of the place to quote the relevant portion of the survey report, which is as under:-

“Damages to the building were there.  However, to my opinion, damages are not directly caused by Storm and lightening on 17.4.13 but due to gradual wear and tear and poor maintenance, thus the same is not covered by the Policy……. Insured is citing local newspaper (bi-monthly) report and Municipal Councillor’s certificate as proof of cause of damage.  However, I have doubts about the authenticity and competence of the newspaper reporter whose report d