National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Madan Mohan Panda Carrying vs National Insurance Co. Ltd on 7 April, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 177 OF 2008 1. MADAN MOHAN PANDA CARRYING M/s. Durga Export Fabric Division 893, Satya Nagar Bhubaneswar Orissa -751007 ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD 3, Middletorn Street P.O. No. 9229, Kolkata -700071 West Bengal ...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. Santosh Kumar and
Ms. Bhabna Das, Advocates For the Opp.Party : Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate
Dated : 07 Apr 2016 ORDER JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
The complainant, who is carrying business in the name and style of Durga Exports, received an order from M/s. Nainvirat International Business Co. Ltd. Bangkok, for supply of 4200 units of designer fabric drapes, for a total price of USD 1,428.000/-. The complainant entered into two separate contracts, one with Sethia Fashions & Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and other with Chitrakoot Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., for purchasing the aforesaid fabric drapes. Both the aforesaid companies are stated to be sisters concerns represented by one Mr. Sandeep Kumar Sethia. In turn, the above name suppliers had allegedly outsourced the said material from other suppliers. The aforesaid fabric drapes were allegedly supplied to the complainant from time to time between May 2003 and August 2003 and the complainant claims to have paid a sum of Rs.2,52,00,000/- to M/s. Sethia Fashions & Agencies Pvt. Ltd. by way of 14 cheques and Rs.2,77,20,000/- to M/s. Chitrakoot Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. by way of another 14 cheques, towards purchase price of the said drapes. On 03.09.2003, the complainant took an insurance policy from the opposite party, to cover the risk of transporting the consignment of the fabric drapes from Calcutta to Dubai, via Mumbai. The aforesaid consignment, allegedly kept in 115 card board cartoons, was entrusted to M/s. Calcutta Cargo Carriers on 20.10.2003, declaring full value of the goods. The intimation of the said dispatch was given to the opposite party, vide fax dated 20.10.2003 and endorsement in terms of the insurance policy was made by the opposite party on 22.10.2003.
2. The case of the complainant is that Truck No.WB-03A-6637 carrying the aforesaid consignment caught fire at about 1.30 AM on 22.10.2003 near Bangriposi Ghat, N.H. No.6, Mayurbhanj. The night police patrol reached the spot at about 2 AM. The fire brigade reached the spot at about 3.10 AM but could do nothing and the entire consignment allegedly got burnt in the said fire. Vide letter dated 23.10.2003, the complainant reported the incident of fire to the insurer. M/s. General Surveyors of India was appointed as the surveyor on or about 24.10.2003. On 31.10.2003, they were formally appointed as surveyors. On 17.11.2003, the complainant submitted a claim, alleging total loss of Rs.7,22,56,800/-. Later Apex Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. were appointed as investigator to assess the loss. The claim came to be rejected vide letter dated 10.01.2007, primarily, on the grounds that (i) the risk was not covered by the policy, and (ii) the whole transaction was a fraud. Being aggrieved from the non-payment of his claim, the complainant is before this Commission, seeking the principal claim amount of Rs.7,22,56,800/- along with interest etc., making a total claim of Rs.13,74,30,026/-.
3. The complaint has been resisted by the insurer on several grounds. It is alleged that the policy issued to the complainant being a specific voyage policy and the declaration as to specific details of the risk/adventure having not being intimated to the insurer before commencement of the risk, the contract was liable to avoidance. The risk commenced at about 2.30 AM on 21.10.2003, whereas the effective date of endorsement was 22.10.2003. It is also alleged that the complainant contravened contention no.13 of the proposal by not making advance declaration of the dispatch to the insurer and therefore the contract became void ab-initio. It is also claimed in the reply filed by the insurer that the complainant was not authorized to export, which was not neither fully paid nor protected and secured by letter of credit and the movement of goods without letter of credit was illegal. The insurer has also questioned the authenticity of alleged export order and existence of the supplier named by the complainant. It is also alleged that payment of crores by the named supplier to the persons from whom the fabric was outsourced by the named supplier by way of his cheque long after the alleged loss, was doubtful. It is also pointed out in the reply that the truck in which the goods were allegedly transported was registered in two different states. Reliance is placed upon the report of the investigator claiming therein that the alleged transaction of the export consignment was fake.
4. On merits, the insurer has alleged that since the preliminary surveyor in its report dated 10.12.2003 had recommended in depth investigation and for obtaining information from external agencies, an investigator was appointed on 07.10.2004. It is pointed out, in the reply filed by the insurer, that the dispatch details were not conveyed to the insurer till the last moment, though export formalities were being completed for quite some time. The intimation of the dispatch from Kolkata was given to the insurer only at 10.09 PM on 20.10.2003 so that the insurer gets no time to inspect the material before its dispatch, as the office of the insurer closed at 5 PM. It is also claimed that the policy consisted to two legs of transit, one being the road transit from Kolkata to Mumbai and other being the sea transit from Mumbai to Dubai. Since the second transit was yet to commence and the insured had asked the insurer to take all necessary steps to supervise the consignment at the time of loading the container for shipment from Mumbai Port, the insurance company had issued an endorsement for the second leg of the transit cover. It is further alleged in the reply filed by the insurer that the inquiries and investigations made by them had revealed that no firm by the name of Nainvirat International Business Co. Ltd. was in existence.
5. The first question which arises for our consideration in this complaint is as to whether consignment in question, which allegedly got destroyed in the night intervening 21/22.10.2003, was covered under the insurance policy issued to the complainant or not.
6. The details of the consignment were recorded by the insurer in endorsement dated 22.10.2003 pursuant to letter of the complainant dated 20.10.2003 received at 10.09 p.m. on that very date. The contention of the learned counsel for the insurer is that the policy issued to the complainant on 03.9.2003 was not effective till the details of the consignment were noted, by way of an endorsement, to be issued by the insurer and since the said Consignment Note came to be issued during office hours on 22.10.2003, the risk came to be covered only with effect from the time the said endorsement was issued and since the alleged loss took place in the night intervening 21/22.10.2003, the risk was not covered at the time the consignment allegedly got destroyed. The learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, contended that the endorsement having been issued on 22.10.2003 became effective from the midnight of 21/22.10.2003 and therefore, at about 1.30 a.m. of 22.10.2003 when the truck carrying the goods caught fire, the consignment stood duly insured.
In our opinion, an insurance policy when taken for the first time is valid only from the time it is issued and not from the midnight previous to the day on which the policy is issued. The position however, could be different in a case where the policy is got renewed and the renewal is made effective from the date on which the previous policy expired. In case of renewal of an existing policy, the insurer is only continuing the insurance of the risk already covered by it, whereas in a fresh policy, the risk comes to be covered for the first time only on the issuance of the policy. If we accept the contention that even a first policy is effective from the midnight previous to the day on which the policy is issued, this may result in a situation where a person after suffering loss due to an uninsured risk approaches the insurer after discovering the loss suffered by him, obtains an insurance policy, without disclosing the said loss and then claims that the risk having commenced from the previous midnight, the insurer is liable to reimburse him. To give an example, if a person discovers, say at 6 a.m. that an uninsured vehicle parked outside his house has been stolen, he may go to the office of the insurer during office hours, take an insurance policy, without disclosing that the vehicle has already been stolen and then seek reimbursement on the ground that the policy was effective from the previous midnight. To take another example, if a person, who is not present in his house in the night but returns in the morning and finds a theft having taken place in his house approaches the insurer during office hours and obtains an insurance policy without disclosing the said theft, he may claim reimbursement from the insurer taking the same plea. Therefore, taking the view suggested by the learned counsel for the complainant is likely to result in frightening consequences to the insurer.
7. The learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Dayal and Others (1990) 2 SCC 680, in support of his contention that the endorsement became operative with effect from the midnight of 21/22.10.2003. In the above referred case, the vehicle was earlier insured upto 31.8.1984 and was available to be renewed, but instead of obtaining renewal, a fresh insurance was taken from September 28, 1984 when the accident happened. The Hon'ble Supreme Court agreed with the view that when a policy is taken on a particular date it is effective from the commencement of the said date. The aforesaid decision however, does not apply to the present case since the endorsement came to be issued for the first time on October 22, 2003 and this is not a case of either renewing an existing policy or taking another policy in continuation of an existing policy. Moreover, there is nothing in the judgment to indicate that the accident had happened even before the commencement of the office hours on September 28, 1984, whereas in the case before us, the alleged fire broke out at 1.30 a.m. which would be eight hours before the commencement of the office hours of the insurer on 22.10.2003.
8. A contract of insurance presupposes that the loss sought to be covered by way of an insurance policy has already not occurred by the time the policy is obtained. No insurer would agree to cover a loss which has already happened. Therefore, obtaining an insurance policy after the loss has already occurred will be a deceitful act and on discovering of the deceit the, insurer is entitled to avoid the contract of insurance, on the ground that the insurance policy was obtained by concealment of material fact i.e. the loss, sought to be covered by way of the intended policy, had already happened.
9. In the present case, the intimation of the discharge of the consignment was sent by the complainant to the insurer by fax, at 10.09 p.m. on 20.10.2003. The office of the insurance company is closed at that time. The case of the complainant is that the truck carrying consignment in question left Kolkata on 20/21.10.2003, meaning thereby, that it left Kolkata for Mumbai in the night intervening 20/21.10.2003. The complainant, thus, dispatched the goods without obtaining the requisite endorsement from the insurer as regards the details of the consignments vide which the goods were allegedly sent from Kolkata for Mumbai. The transporter and through whom, the complainant came to know in the night intervening 21/22.10.2003 that the consignment had been destroyed in a fire which allegedly broke out in the truck in which the consignment was being carried. A perusal of the letter dated 23.10.2003 sent by Calcutta Cargo Carrier to the complainant shows that on the truck catching fire, which happened at about 1.30 a.m., the driver and Khalasi informed the truck owner, who in turn intimated the carrier. This letter further shows that the carrier immediately informed the complainant over telephone at his local as well as his Bhubaneswar office. Thus, the complainant knew in the night of 21/22.10.2003 itself that the consignment which he had allegedly sent from Kolkata to Mumbai had been damaged or destroyed, in the fire which broke out in the truck carrying the said consignment. Despite that, the complainant did not bring the aforesaid fact to the notice of the insurer. The intimation to the insurer was given only on 23.10.2003. In our opinion, considering that the insurer was yet to issue the endorsement required for the insuring the consignment in question, by the time the fire broke out in the truck and the said consignment got damaged or destroyed, the complainant ought to have immediately intimated the said loss to the insured on telephone or by fax. The conduct of the complainant in not giving any intimation to the insurer either in the night of 21.10.2003 or during day time on 22.10.2003, leaves no reasonable doubt that he had deliberately withheld the information from the insurer since he knew that if the said information was given the insurer would not issue the requisite endorsement insuring the said consignment. The complainant therefore, obtained the endorsement dated 22.10.2003 by concealment of material fact from the insurer.
10. Vide letter dated 02.9.2003, the complainant requested the opposite party to provide competitive rate for covering the consignment detailed in the said letter. Clause 13 of the said letter, reads as under:
"13. Conditions : Supervised loading and weighment of consignment at any point shall be done by your nominated surveyors at your cost".
It would thus be seen that the complainant himself had made it a condition of the proposal that the consignment would be weighed and loaded, at any point of time, only in the supervision of a surveyor nominated by the insurer. It was contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that since the aforesaid condition does not find mention in the insurance policy issued by the opposite party; it is not binding upon the complainant. We however, find no merit in this contention. The proposal submitted by the complainant being the basis of the insurance policy issued by the opposite party, the aforesaid condition constitutes a valid term agreed by both the parties and therefore, the said term was binding upon the complainant. Hence, the complainant was under a contractual obligation to request the insurer to depute a surveyor to supervise the loading of the consignment in the truck, for the road journey from Kolkata to Mumbai. By not requesting the insurer to nominate a surveyor to supervise the weighment and loading of the consignment the complainant contravened a binding term of the contract between the parties and consequently, the insurer is also not bound by its obligation to reimburse the complainant for the loss sustained by him. The aforesaid term, in our view, cannot be said to be a mere formality since in the absence of such supervision, it is not possible for the insurer to know what was the nature and quantity of the goods that were being loaded in the vehicle. In the absence of such supervision, the insurer becomes dependent solely upon the word of the complainant as regards the nature and quantity of the goods sent by road from Kolkata to Mumbai. Since that was not the term agreed by the parties, the insurer, on account of the aforesaid default on the part of the complainant, in our view, stood relieved of its obligation under the policy.
11. It was contended by the learned counsel for the insurer that since the complainant allegedly dispatched the goods by road, without even giving an opportunity to the insurer to inspect the same, the endorsement dated 22.10.2003 applied only to the second lag of the journey i.e. sea journey from Mumbai to Dubai. In this regard, he pointed out that the complainant had, vide letter dated 20.10.2003, asked to insurer only to take steps to supervise the consignment at the time of loading into the container for shipment to Mumbai Port. The learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand contended that by issuing the endorsement dated 22.10.2003, despite having come to know from the letter of the complainant dated 20.10.2003, that the goods had already been dispatched by road, the insurer waived its right, if any, to inspect the goods before they were dispatched form Kolkata. In this regard, he submitted that the use of the words "consignment sent from Kolkata to Dubai, via Mumbai Port" in the endorsement indicates that the insurer had come to know that the consignment had already been dispatched by road from Kolkata to Mumbai. We notice that in the letter dated 20.10.2003, there is no indication that the goods had already been dispatched or were going to be dispatched in the night intervening 20/21.10.2003. No request for inspection of the goods at Kolkata was made to the insurer, in the aforesaid letter dated 20.10.2003. If the complainant wanted the endorsement to include both the lags of the journey, he ought to have given an opportunity to the insurer to appoint a surveyor to supervise the weighing and loading of the goods at Kolkata. That having not been done, it is not open to the complainant to say that the endorsement issued by the insurer covered even the first lag of the journey. As contended by the learned counsel for the insurer, use of the words "consignment sent from Kolkata to Dubai, via Mumbai Port", in such circumstances, would be of no consequence since in such a situation the said words could be used to state a factual situation that the goods had been sent by road from Kolkata to Mumbai. It is true that the endorsement by itself does not restrict the operation of the policy to the second lag of the journey but, considering the fact that the complainant did not even request the insurer to supervise the weight and loading of the goods at Kolkata and restricted his request to the supervision at the time of the shipment from Mumbai Port, the interpretation suggested by the learned counsel for the opposite party cannot be said to be illogical or unreasonable.
Be that as it may, considering that the letter dated 20.10.2003 had no indication that the goods had already been dispatched by road from Kolkata to Mumbai and therefore, the insurer having presumed that even the road journey was yet to commence, insured both the lags of the journey, by way of the endorsement dated 22.10.2003, the said endorsement having been issued in the absence of the information that the goods in question, had already been destroyed, will not bind the insurer. As noted earlier, the complainant ought to have informed the insurer either in the night of 21/22.20.2003 or early in the morning of 22.10.2003, that the goods had already been destroyed in a fire. That having not been done and the endorsement having been obtained by concealment of this material fact, the insurer is entitled to avoid its contractual obligation under the policy, on this ground alone.
12. The appointment of M/s. Apex Surveyors Private Limited was assailed by the learned counsel for the complainant on the ground that the said appointment was in violation of Section 64 UM of the Insurance Act as the second surveyor can be appointed only by IRDA in terms of Sub-Section (3) of the Section 64 UM. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the complainant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Protection Manufacturers Private Ltd. (2010) 7 SCC 386. The learned counsel for the opposite party, on the other hand, contended that M/s. Apex Surveyors Private Ltd. was not a second surveyor but an investigator appointed on the recommendation of the surveyor M/s. General Surveyors of India. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the opposite party relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harjeet Rice Mills III (2005) CPJ 6 (SC).
In Harjeet Rice Mills (supra), the insurer after receipt of the report of the surveyor engaged a private investigator in investigate and the said agency reported that the fire might not have been caused by short-circuiting as was claimed by the insured. It was contended on behalf of the insured that the report of the private investigator could not be looked into in the light of Section 64 UM (C) of the Insurance Act since the private investigator had not been licensed. The State Commission having accepted the position canvassed by the insured and refused to look into the report of the private investigator and the High Court also having endorsed that position, the matter was taken by the insurer to the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was inter-alia held that Section 64 UM of the Insurance Act could not stand in the way of the insurance company in establishing that the claim was a fraud on the company or that it was a case of deliberately causing a fire so as to lay the foundation for an insurance claim. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that the State Commission should have given an opportunity to the insurer to prove the investigation report. Accordingly, the orders passed by the High Court and the State Commission were set aside and the matter was remanded to the State Commission for a fresh enquiry and a decision. Vide its report dated 10.12.2003, the General Surveyors of India noticing that a lot of help / cooperation from the Police Department as well as their involvement was necessary for a thorough in depth investigations in this case of total loss of such high valued consignment recommended appointment of a professional investigator to investigate the subject case.
A perusal of the report dated 07.8.2006 submitted by the Apex Surveyors Private Ltd. would show that they had carried out investigation into the alleged loss of fabric. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Harjeet Rice Mills (supra), the appointment of M/s. Apex Surveyors private Ltd. as investigator cannot be faulted with.
13. A perusal of the bank account of the complainant with UTI bank shows that the huge cash deposits were made in the said account. The following appear to be the cash deposits made in the said account.
Date
Amount
16.5.2003
9,00,000.00 17.5.2003 9,00,000.00 19.5.2003 10,00,000.00 27.5.2003 20,00,000.00 27.5.2003 20,00,000.00 02.6.2003 5,00,000.00 16.6.2003 10,00,000.00 16.6.2003 10,00,000.00 12.7.2003 9,00,000.00 15.7.2003 8,00,000.00 23.7.2003 50,000.00 31.7.2003 2,00,000.00 04.8.2003 9,00,000.00 22.8.2003 9,00,000.00 Similar the following cash deposits were made in account of the complainant with South Indian Bank.
Date Amount 21.8.2003 9,00,000.00 23.8.2003 9,00,000.00 25.8.2003 9,00,000.00 26.8.2003 2,00,000.00 26.8.2003 7,00,000.00 27.8.2003 9,00,000.00 28.8.2003 4,00,000.00 31.10.2003 5,00,000.00 28.1.2004 7,00,000.00
-----January, 2004 8,00,000.00
-----January, 2004 6,07,000.00 During the course of arguments we asked the learned counsel for the complainant to explain the aforesaid huge cash deposits in the accounts from which payments were purportedly made to M/s. Sethia Fashions & Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Chitrakoot Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. The learned counsel failed to point out the source from which the aforesaid cash deposits were made. He only pointed out that not only the cash deposits but also cash withdrawals were made from time to time, from the aforesaid two accounts. We however find that, in the rejoinder, the complainant has alleged that the aforesaid cash deposits were arranged from the market, meaning thereby that the aforesaid amounts were taken as loan from various persons. Section 269 SS of the Income Tax Act inter-alia provides that no person shall take or accept from any other person any loan otherwise than by an account payees cheque or account payees draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account, if the amount of such a loan is 20,000/- ₹ or more. The acceptance of loan in contravention of Section 269 SS of the Act is punishable under Section 271 D of the said Act. The complainant has not disclosed the names of the persons or entities from whom the aforesaid huge amounts are alleged to have been taken as loan. Had that been done, it would have been possible for the investigator and even for this Commission to verify the alleged loans. The aforesaid huge cash deposits coupled with the failure of the complainant to disclose the source of the said cash deposits, needs to be viewed in the light of the facts and circumstances attending this claim. It was found by the investigator that M/s. Sethia Fashions & Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Chitrakoot Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., who admittedly themselves did not manufacture the fabric alleged to have been purchased from them had made payment to the suppliers from whom the said fabric was allegedly outsourced by them, by way of bearer cheques some of which were not even presented to the bank for encashment. The investigator was informed that the entire payment to the aforesaid agencies by Sethia Fashions & Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Chitrakoot Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. had not been made even by the time fire destroyed the fabric from them. The said payment is stated to have been finally cleared much later. A perusal of the challans whereby the fabric was allegedly supplied to the complainant by Sethia Fashions & Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Chitrakoot Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., shows that no serial numbers are given on the said challans, meaning thereby that the said documents could be prepared at any point of time and in the absence of serial numbers on them, their genuineness cannot be verified by making inquiries with reference to the other challans issued by Sethia Fashions & Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Chitrakoot Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. to the purchasers other than the complainant. It is in this backdrop that the failure of the complainant to explain the source of the huge cash deposits made in the bank accounts from which payment was allegedly made to M/s. Sethia Fashions & Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Chitrakoot Suppliers Pvt. Ltd. becomes important. The said failure, in our opinion, creates doubt on the genuineness of the transactions between the complainant and Sethia Fashions & Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Chitrakoot Suppliers Pvt. Ltd.
Admittedly, no legal proceedings against the carrier M/s. Calcutta Cargo Carriers have been initiated by the complainant for reimbursement of the loss alleged to have been sustained by it on account of the fabric having been destroyed in the fire which allegedly broke out in the truck attached to the said carrier. Vide letter dated 24.10.2003, the complainant wrote to M/s. Calcutta Cargo Carriers that the said carrier could not avoid its liability, it being the custodian of the consignment during transit from Kolkata to Mumbai. It was further stated in the said letter that the complainant would shortly lodge financial claim on the said carrier. The carrier was requested to give non delivery / damage certificate of the consignment in the meanwhile. Though, the non-delivery certificates were later provided to the complainant on 08.12.2003, no case against the carrier was filed. The failure of the complainant to initiate legal proceedings against the carrier becomes important when viewed in the light of the facts stated hereinabove, including the huge cash deposits in the bank accounts and the delivery challans issued by M/s. Sethia Fashions & Agencies Pvt. Ltd. and Chitrakoot Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., not bearing any serial number. In fact, the entire series of transactions appears to be shrouded in mystery when examined in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. Another material aspect in this regard is that when the investigator sent a letter to one Mr. Dey in whose name this vehicle was registered, there was no response from him. Later, Mr. Dey was produced by the complainant and the transporter before the investigator. It transpired that this very vehicle was also found registered in the name of one Mr. Baljit Singh in another place. Mr. Dey claimed to have purchased this vehicle from one Mr. Manjit Singh, but there is no evidence of Mr. Manjit Singh having purchased the said vehicle from Mr. Baljit. Another material aspect in this regard is that the driver of the truck reached the police station, which was at a distance of only 3.5 km at about 6 a.m. though the fire broke out at about 1.30 a.m., and no attempt was made by the driver and the cleaner of the truck to retrieve any box containing the fabric despite the fact that the fire had started from the engine and therefore, any prudent truck driver and the cleaner, would have tried to retrieve as many boxes as could be possible till the fire could engulf the entire consignment. The aforesaid conduct of the driver and the cleaner of the truck appear to be unnatural. The said conduct when viewed in the light of other facts and circumstances of the case, including the failure of the complainant to initiate any legal proceedings against the carrier, creates a serious doubt on the genuineness of the claim.
14. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the view that the facts and circumstances surrounding this claim are highly suspicious and have not been satisfactorily explained. In any case, even if we ignore the aforesaid suspicious facts and circumstances, in view of our finding as recorded in para 6 to 11 hereinabove, we hold that the consignment in question as not covered under the insurance policy taken by the complainant at the time it got destroyed in fire and therefore, the complainant is not entitled to any reimbursement from the opposite party. The complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... DR. B.C. GUPTA MEMBER