M/S. Bhagwati Bricks Bhatta Udyog Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others - Court Judgment

The State Commission:

This appeal has been filed against the order of the District Forum, Pali dated 10.11.05 by which the complaint of the appellant/ complainant was dismissed.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant /complainant had established a brick klin in village Mandal after taking financial assistance from the Central Cooperative Bank. Appellant had taken a insurance cover for Rs. 11 lakhs which covered the risk to his project by flood, fire etc. The complainant stated that on 29.6.02 there was heavy rainfall in the region. At that time around 50,000 bricks in the klin were being processed. Due to rainfall the water entered the chimny resulting into blast and his whole project was damaged. He stated that labourer's residential quarters, office building, furniture and other belongings were destroyed. He suffered a loss of Rs. 10 lakhs. He had stated that he informed the respondent no.3 ( the bank ) on the same day on telephone about this incident. Respondents no. 1 and 2 were informed on 24.8.02. He lodged a claim for the loss but his claim was repudiated by the insurance company. He filed a complaint before the District Forum, who after considering all the facts came to the conclusion that there was no flood in the area and the insurance cover taken by the complainant covered only loss by flood. The complainant was not able to prove any flood in the area and there was delay in informing the insurance company about this incident.

The learned counsel for the appellant has challanged the findings of the District Forum and has relied on a certificate given by the Sarpanch of the area who stated that there was heavy rainfall on 29.6.02 and rain water took shape of flood and thus entered the complainant's project and complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 8 lakhs. The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that report of the Sarpanch was further confirmed by the area Patwari and Secretary of the panchayat. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that delay in informing the insurance company may be condoned as wife of the complainant was ill in his village and he had to go there to attend her and that is why he could not inform the insurance company in time.

The learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 has argued that the conclusion arrived at by the District Forum is correct which requires no interference as the complainant has not proved any flood occurring on that day in that area. The certificate given by the Sarpanch after almost two months of the incident is baseless. He did not personally go to verify the loss there. He cannot testify that 5 lakh bricks were in the klin which were destroyed. He also argued that delay in informing the insurance company is absolutely fatal. There is no evidence that the complainant's wife was ill at his village and there was no one to attend to her and he had to remain there for two months, he could not inform the insurance company. Hence this appeal may be dismissed.

We have heard the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. We feel that there has been an inordinate delay in informing the insurance company about the incident. The explanation given by the complainant that his wife was ill at village cannot be accepted. In his complaint the complainant had mentioned that he had informed the respondent no.3 (the bank) on the same day on telephone and then there was no reason why he could not intimate the respondent no. 1 and 2 about this incident on telephone. There are no facts on record when he left for village, how long he remained in the village and his wife was suffering from what disease which required his presence for almost two months in the village. No supporting medical evidence in the form of prescription, bills etc. have been produced. Thus, the respondents no. 1 and 2 have been deprived of the spot survey of the incident. Had they been informed in time, they could have sent their surveyor to conduct spot inspection which would have helped to settle the claim. Thus, we feel that delay in informing the insurance company is fatal and raises suspicion about the genuineness of the claim.

The second reason on which the complaint was rejected was that the complainant was not able to prove that there was any flood in the area. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the certificate of the Sarpanch, we feel that this certificate cannot be relied upon. This certificate was given after nearly two months. Secondly, the Metrological Department of the government keeps the record of the daily rainfall and if there were floods in the area, the data would have been recorded by the Metrological Department. No official record of this kind was produced to support this contention. Secondly, had there been floods in the area, other people in the village might have been effected and there was no evidence to this fact also. A plain reading of the complaint shows that complainant has exaggerated the incident. In his complaint he mentioned that water entered the chimny which resulted into a blast destroying labourer's quarters, office building, furniture and other material lying there but the Sarpanch who gave the certificate did not find any such loss. If there had been blast in the chimny, it could not have gone unnoticed by the people around.

The surveyor appointed by the insurance company who inspected the site found no such loss. As reported by the complainant if it had been raining for last three days then it was not possible for the labourers to work in the klin. Certificate of the Sarpanch says that 5 lakhs bricks were destroyed while complainant mentions only 50000 bricks which is also contradiction. Normally brick klins work between the months of October to May as in the rainy season brick klins cannot work due to rains as the project lies in the open space. We are inclined to accept the survey report of the surveyor appointed by respondents no. 1 and 2 who stated that the project is lying in a low level area and even normal rains water flows and accumulates there which cause some loss to the appellant but there were no floods and the insurance cover cannot be invoked.

In view of above discussions we feel that there is no merits in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.