U.P.KHADI GRAMODHYOG BOARD vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY

THE complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,20,500/- as damages on account of the loss caused to his unit as a result of fire.

THE facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant is registered as a society which was registered on 22.8.1988, Mr. Vijai Narain Pandey being ''Sachiv'' of the Sansthan, is the Chief Executive Officer. Jagdamba Swarg Gramodyog Sansthan is a unit of this society which is situated at 1171, Johi, Kanpur-2 and is in receipt of financial assistance. U.P. Khadi Gramodyog Board/Ayog, after completing formalities, advanced a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant for manufacturing potato chips. Out of this sum, an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was paid as first instalment on 23rd October, 1989. THE rest amount of Rs. 60,000/- was paid on 16.5.1990. This amount was deposited in the account of the complainant. The complainant got this unit insured for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 15.2.1991 from the opposite party. The validity of the insurance was from 15.2.1991 to 14.2.1992. The unit was working satisfactorily but in the night of 11/12th June, 1991 at about 2.30 a.m., there took place a fire in the unit. An F.I.R. as lodged at Kanpur Nagar, Crime No. 121/1991 under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. It was lodged on 12th June, 1991. Fire brigade was also informed. On account of this fire the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 1,20,501/-.

The complainant informed the Insurance Company, opposite party, on 13.6.1991 and also made an application on the same day. Even after lapse of one year the claim has not been settled. The opposite party also took two letters dated 28.10.1991 and 31.1.1992 from complainant and assured to finalise the claim as early as possible. When the claim was not settled, he issued a letter through his Counsel on 8th of May, 1992.

THE opposite party contested the claim of the complainant and alleged that paras 1,2 and 3 do not relate to the answering defendant but related to U.P. Khadi Gramodyog Board and the Board has not been made a party which could give proper replies to these paras. Taking of policy by the complainant was admitted. Controversy revolves around the fact whether the complainant is entitled to get any compensation in terms and conditions of the policy. It has been alleged that the primary thing is that whether the fire did ever break out at the insured premises or not. Merely lodging of F.I.R. is not sufficient to prove the incidence. As a matter of fact the fire never broke out and it was intentional act of the complainant to get the compensation from the opposite party, in order to pay off the loan which he had taken but has not been invested in the unit, but utilised for his own personal use. It is further alleged that the factory of the complainant was locked from the last one week and was not in a running condition and there was no stock in the same. It has also been alleged that the generator was also not in the premises at the time of incidence. It is further alleged that the raw material required to prepare 30 quintals of chips etc. was not purchased. There was no electric connection in the premises. This type of commodity gets spoiled very soon and on account of the rise in temperature it cannot be stored for a long period. The storing of potatoes as alleged by the complainant is also false. The complainant never cooperated with the Surveyor who went to the spot to assess the loss caused on account of the alleged fire. Surveyor had sent two letters to the complainant but they were not received by the complainant. A questionaire was given by the Surveyor by hand but they were not replied and a note was made that the questions are not satisfactory. A Surveyor was immediately appointed to assess the loss. He has filed a report dated 30th January, 1992 recommending that the claim should be repudiated as no incidence of fire had been established. The notice sent by the complainant was duly replied and it is alleged that the claim was rightly repudiated. This written statement has been filed on affidavit and hence it has been considered as evidence.

SIMILARLY complainant filed rejoinder affidavit on oath and hence it has also been considered as evidence on behalf of the complainant. It has been mentioned by the complainant that when the fire broke out the entire stock, and machinery, generator were burnt and the ceiling also suffered extensive damage. At the time of fire, 25 quintals of potato chips costing Rs. 75,000/- at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per quintal, potato Lachha weighing 5 quintals costing around Rs. 12,500/- (at the rate of Rs. 2,500/-per quintal), plastic bags and other bags weighing 1 quintal and costing Rs. 8,000/- were burnt. Damages to the building was to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- and to the machinery the same was to the extent of Rs. 15,000/-, as mentioned in para 8 of the complaint. We have considered the evidence on record and have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The opposite party Insurance Company had appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss caused on account of fire to the premises of the complainant as reported by him. As seen in the earlier part of the judgment, the fire took place in the night of 11/12th June, 1991 and an F.I.R. was lodged on 12th June, 1991. The claim was lodged on 13.6.1991. A Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company, opposite party, and the report dated 30.12.1992 is on record which has been filed by the opposite party. It is not known as to on which date the Surveyor visited the spot. The factory is located in Village Katharuaa, Pargana, Kanpur. The measurement is 15 ft. x 9 ft. and the construction is of ''C'' class. Inside the outside plaster is of mud and the roof was a thatched one on wooden purlins. The floor was cemented but the upper portion was plastered with mud. The factory which consists of only one godown measuring 15 ft. x. 9 ft. as mentioned earlier. The machineries are reported to be installed in the open, just near the godown and there was no electricity connection. One manual chip machine and one Bhatti were installed in the godown. No generator was found on the spot. The factory was not in operation. This fact was verified from the neighbours. The fire was seen at 2.30 in the night when villagers came to extinguish the fire. It could be extinguished in about two hours'' time. The complainant was not present at the site when the fire took place. According to Surveyor, the cause of the fire could not be ascertained as it could not have been due to electric sparking for want of electric connection. In the opinion of the Surveyor from the salvages which was found on the spot, he could not find any trace of the total stock as claimed. There was, according to him, very negligible quantity of potatoes, namely 1 kg. In his opinion also the godown cannot accommodate such huge quantity of raw materials and finished goods as stated by the opposite party. The walls had not sustained any damage except that mild signs of smoke and wall burning was there. The plaster of the wall was intact. In his report it is further mentioned that the entire machinery which was installed in the open area was not inter-communicating with the godown and that was not affected by fire. Surveyor could not understand under what circumstances the fire reached the machinery also. It has also been mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment that no diesel generator set was found on the spot and no evidence of its installation could be given by the complainant to the Surveyor. He has further mentioned that the receipts and bills which were submitted to the Insurance Company were on plain papers though alleged to be obtained from different persons by the complainant. It has also been mentioned by the Surveyor that no sale proceeds were ever deposited in the Bank account. Thus in the opinion of the Surveyor no loss has been caused to the complainant. On the basis of this report the claim was repudiated.

QUERY was made from the complainant by Branch Manager of the Insurance Company on 27.4.1992. The Surveyor had given a questionaire of 7 questions to the complainant but there is endorsement of the complainant that these questions are not satisfactory. We have gone through the questionaire and they were quite relevant for the purpose of enquiry in order to ascertain the cause of the fire and the extent of loss suffered by the complainant. Non-answering of this questionaire clearly speaks for itself and shows that the complainant was avoiding to give answers to the queries raised by the Insurance Company. It was the duty of the complainant to have assisted the Surveyor in his work for surveying the loss alleged to have been incurred to the complainant. As the complainant failed to reply to these queries, an adverse inference can be drawn against the case of the complainant that no damages as claimed by him were caused to him. The complainant has also not been able to attack the report of the Surveyor on any point and could not show as to how the fire took place when there was no electric connection or any other source of fire present in the godown or nearby.

A perusal of the rejoinder affidavit will go to show that in para 7 it has been specifically mentioned that the generator was also burnt and was reduced to ashes. As mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, no evidence was produced before the surveyor for purchase of diesel generating set. There was also no electric wiring in the godown. The complainant has also not filed any document alongwith the complaint or later on to show that the complainant has purchased a generator. Unless there is satisfactory proof of purchase of generator, it cannot be said that the generator was purchased by the complainant and it was installed at the premises and was damaged during the fire incidence. Generator is not a commodity which can evaporate during the course of fire. Damage will be caused to the generator but its structure will remain where it is. No such structure was found at the spot by the surveyor. Hence it can not safely be held that the complainant had not purchased any generator and had not installed the same at his factory premises and the same was not at the spot on the date of fire. Thus in view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the claim put forward by the complainant is not correct and he has filed a false claim. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to claim any relief or damages against opposite party. The complaint is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ORDER The complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost. Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules. Complaint dismissed. _______________