BHAWANI SINGH., J. - (1.) NOTICE accepted by Shri Virender Bhat for respondent. Admit. Heard finally
(2.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of Jammu and Kashmir State Consumers Protection Commission (hereinafter Commission) dated November 13, 1998
(3.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that the complainant, who is a migrant lady from Kashmir Valley, had insured her house -hold goods with the Appellant for Rs. 1.28 Lac. During her stay in Delhi, she got information about the loss of her goods and lodged First Information Report on May 28, 1992. Since she was away from the place of occurrence, no definite date of occurrence could be furnished by her. But her case is that loss took place during the subsistence of policy. Loss was assessed by Shri Ravi Dhar appointed by the appellant, at Rs 75,335/ - Objection of appellant against the claim is that the claimant has not established the date of occurrence, therefore, it could be that the occurrence took place during 34 days when old policy had expired and new policy had not come into existence This question has been examined by the commission and it has been decided through the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. The case set up by the complainant is that during the subsistence of policy the incident took place. The first policy started from 20th July 1989 to 19th July 1991 Second policy started from 23rd August 1991 to August 22, 1992. Of course, there is gap of 34 days between the two policies but the appellant says that the incident may have taken place during this time otherwise, the onus to prove this fact was on the complainant. She having failed to prove the same: it has to be taken that the incident took place during these 34 days. Hence, the claim was repudiated and the same is barred by time not having been agitated within 12 months thereof As said; the claimant has asserted that the incident took place during the subsistence of policy. There is no proper rebuttal to this statement by oral or by documentary evidence. In case the statement is not acceptable, nothing prevents it from proving the same by placing oral or documentary evidence before the Commission, Moreover, the policy must have been renewed after verification of the spot and the property question. In case the property did not exist when renewal took place, there could be no renewal of the policy Consequently, it is to be presumed that the property existed when the renewal took place, contention to the contrary being set up by the appellant is liable to be rejected, Next, the contention with respect to repudiation and delay in lodging any complaint is untenable. After communicating the repudiation; complainant rebutted against the same. The matter was reconsidered again and repudiated. If counted from this stage, complaint is within time. This contention is also rejected.;