PRAGATI SALES CORPORATION vs GENERAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

THIS is a complaint filed by the complainant against National Insurance Company Limited for realising Rs. 7,50,000/- towards the recovery of the claim amount under the policy and further damages of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

INTEREST at the rate of 24% per annum till realisation of the amount has also been prayed for. The facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant carries on its business of Hosiery goods under the name and style of M/s. Pragati Sales Corporation at 31/16 Rawatpara, Agra. The complainant took a fire policy from the opposite party under cover note No. 17405 dated 20.3.1995. The duration of the policy was from 20.3.1995 to 19.3.1996. The stock of Rs. 7,50,000/- was insured. Initially goods were stored at 31/16, Rawatpara, Agra but due to scarcity of space and some other unavoidable circumstances, the stock was transferred to premises No. 8/9 Chanda Pan Wali Gali, Belanganj, Agra after consulting and intimating the officials of opposite party. A written intimation was also given to the Insurance Company under certificate of posting. It has further been alleged that after lapse of several months opposite party did not issue the policy cover note.

On 14.12.1995 the stock at premises No. 8/9, Chanda Pan Wali Gali, Belanganj, Agra was completely destroyed in the fire and an FIR was lodged with the Police Station regarding the fire. The fire brigade also was informed which took entire day in extinguishing the fire. The intimation to the Insurance Company was sent on 14.12.1995 who appointed a Surveyor and took the photographs on the spot and also prepared the video films. By letter dated 20.12.1995 the complainant again informed the Insurance Company to take over the burnt stock/salvage but nothing has been done so far. Complainant also visited the office of the opposite party several times but he did not get any satisfactory reply. By letter dated 22.12.1995 opposite party informed the complainant that there was no fire loss at the premises mentioned in the cover note of the policy and hence no amount is liable to be paid by the respondent.

IT is alleged that the repudiation by the Insurance Company is not justified. The complainant has prayed for recovery of Rs. 7,50,000/- and for damages of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards mental torture, etc. In the written statement opposite party, Insurance Company, has alleged that it is not liable to pay any amount towards the loss and compensation. The respondents have only insured the premises where the goods were kept at the time of taking the policy, whose address is also written in the cover note and the policy. According to the case set up by the opposite party, the loss can be covered only if any incident happens at the place where the goods are kept. It is further alleged that after the information was received from the complainant, a Surveyor was appointed who visited the premises of the complainant and gave a report that the fire did not take place at the place mentioned in the cover note and hence the Company repudiated the claim by letter dated 20.12.1995. The Insurance Company has denied that it ever received any intimation from the complainant about the change of premises.

THE parties filed evidence. We have heard learned Counsels for the parties and have perused the records. According to the case of the complainant, the insurance policy was taken and in the cover note and the policy also the address given for storing the goods was at 31/16, Rawatpara, Agra but the complainant shifted the stock to some other place. According to the case of the complainant he informed, under certificate of posting, the Insurance Company about the change of the premises and the receipt of this letter is denied by the Insurance Company. It is not possible to believe that the complainant would have intimated the Insurance Company about the change in the premises under certificate of posting. The complainant could have either given intimation in writing by himself or could have sent the same through a registered letter. It has to be proved by cogent evidence that the letter has been posted by him and have been delivered to the addressee. In the present case the Insurance Company has on affidavit specifically denied of having received the letter. Even in reply to the notice of complainant, the Insurance Company has alleged that the said letter of change of the store was never received by the Insurance Company. This is a rebuttable presumption and it can be rebutted by the statement on oath by the other side. There are no other supporting facts on record in favour of the complainant which may go to show that the letter was received by the Insurance Company but its receipt is being denied falsely in order to deprive the complainant of the claim of the insurance cover. Even in the case of registered letters if the addressee denied presumption of having received the letter under Section 114 of the Evidence Act it is a rebuttable presumption and the same can be rebutted by the other side. If its receipt is denied by the other side, then the burden to prove shifts on the complainant to prove that the letter was actually delivered which fact can be proved by producing the postman who has delivered the letter. In the present case there is no other evidence on record except the statement of the complainant on affidavit which has been denied on affidavit by the Insurance Company. Thus on the basis of these facts it is not possible for us to hold that the letter of intimation was served on the Insurance Company.

THE complainant has placed reliance on the case of Smt. Kanak Lata Ghose v. Amal Kumar Ghose, AIR 1970 Calcutta p. 328. In this case there was a dispute about the receipt of a letter posted under certificate of posting. As a matter of fact this case does not apply to the facts of the present case, because in that case there was other evidence available on record in the form of behaviour of the parties on the basis of which the Court had come to the conclusion that the letter which was posted under certificate of posting was received by the addressee. In that case the dispute was between the husband and wife and it is alleged that the wife wrote a letter to her husband after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights for taking her with him to some other place than where the husband was living. It was held that the husband, being a highly interested party, therefore, it was probable after the passing of the decree for restitution of conjugal rights to have denied the receipt of the letter. On these facts the Court held that it is highly probable that husband has suppressed the truth in regard to the receipt of abovesaid three letters. Hon''ble High Court further held that no importance can be attached to such a denial by the husband that he did not receive the letters.

THE facts on record reveal that the goods which were insured by the complainant were initially kept at the time of insurance at 31/16, Rawatpara, Agra. This fact has been mentioned, according to the learned Counsel, in the insurance cover note as well as insurance policy. Copy of the insurance policy has been filed which shows that the goods stored at the above mentioned address at the time of insurance. Thus it shows that they were later on transferred to 8/9 Chanda Pan Wali Gali, Belanganj. It has been held that no intimation about change in the premises was received by the Insurance Company and no correction was made in the address where the goods were stored. Thus we find that the complainant is not entitled to any relief and the claim in liable to be dismissed. Order The complaint is dismissed. Let copy be made available to the parties as per rules. Complaint dismissed.