Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Findings:

In our view, the Surveyors have arbitrarily and wrongly doubted the cause of fire. There was no justifiable reason for arriving at the conclusion that fire might not be caused due to electrical short-circuit. It is too much to discard the reports submitted by the Police Officer under Criminal Procedure Code, the Fire Brigade, and the Engineer from the State Electricity Board. Further, admittedly, the fire brigade took nearly 14 hours 20 minutes for extinguishing the fire. After investigation, the Police arrived at the conclusion that it was an accidental fire. Some observations in the preliminary report submitted on 18th August, 1993 were to the effect that the Surveyors have not come across any specific evidence to conclude that the cause of fire was of electrical original would hardly be a ground for holding that cause of fire was not short-circuit. Further, the aforesaid survey report was submitted within the few days of the accidental fire. As against this, final survey report is dated 10.4.1995, i.e. virtually after a lapse of two years of the date of accident. Similarly, the report of Mr.Varaha Samy was not made available to the Complainant, but it was disclosed only in March, 1995. In our view, these reports cannot be relied upon. For Mr.Varaha Swamys report it has been contended that it is a manipulated document. Varaha Swamy visited the premises on 7th August, 1993 and left the place within half-an-hour; has not submitted any report for a period of 14 months, and has submitted an undated report to the Respondent No.1 instead of Respondent No.2 who had appointed him as the Surveyor. It is also pointed out that an incorrect statement was made in the said report to the effect that he had visited the site of fire on 5th August, 1993, while the fire accident took place at 7.00 am on 6th August, 1993. It is also pointed out that Respondent No.1, M/s.National Insurance Co. Ltd. appointed one investigator, M/s.Deshpandey & Associates who had also submitted his report. But, its findings are not disclosed; presumably the findings were against the interest of the Insurance Company. In our view, therefore, there was no justifiable ground for holding that the fire was not accidental one but was an engineered one. In this view of the matter, repudiation of the claim is totally unjustifiable.