JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and order passed by the District Forum Almorah on 27.3.2002 whereby the learned forum allowed the claim of the complainant for the recovery of Rs.1,58,000 as damages for 6 transformers which were damaged due to rains. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant got his project of contract for electrification of villages insured by the appellant company under the scheme ALL RISK MARINE LINE ERECTION INSURANCE. The complainant was informed 10.6.98 that 6 transformers got damaged due to heavy rains. Even after the damage two premiums were paid to the company. The claimant made claim with the company but it repudiated the claim, hence the petition. 3. The insurance Company contested the petition and filed the written statement mainly denying the claim. It was pleaded that after the erection of the project, the insurance had come to an end. It was further pleaded that the claim is not maintainable. The liability of the Insurance Company is also denied. 4. After the contest the Company lost the case, hence this appeal. 5. In this appeal three grounds were argued to assail the judgment. A. The complainant was not entitled to lodge the claim with the insurance company because the principal was U.P. Jal Vidyut Nigam and the complainant was merely an agent. 8. After the erection, the liability of the Insurance Company had come to an end. C. The surveyor got only five transformers wherefrom came the sixth transformer. No other point was agitated. Before giving any finding to these issues, it is pertinent to mention that the written statement of the appellant is totally silent to the se pleas. It is true that specific law of pleadings donor apply to consumer proceedings, but it is also true that in view of the Act and Rules one can not argue a plea which has not been taken. The mere denial of the claim allegations is no pleading in the eye of law unless specifically challenged. 6. We have heard the arguments and we shall decide each question. 7. As regards the first point it is the claimant who had got the insurance, it is the claimant who had paid the premium, it is the claimant who is the actual contractor. The cover note had been issued in the name of both. 6. We have heard the arguments and we shall decide each question. 7. As regards the first point it is the claimant who had got the insurance, it is the claimant who had paid the premium, it is the claimant who is the actual contractor. The cover note had been issued in the name of both. There is no dispute between the alleged principal and the agent. For the Insurance Company both are insured and both of them can jointly or severally claim the insurance money. The entire work was also to be performed by the claimant on spot and the loss if any had also actually to be suffered by the claimant, therefore the claimant had full rights to lodge the claim and to file the case before the learned forum. 8. As regards the second point our attention was drawn teeter dated 31.3.98 and it was argued that in view of this letter the work shall be deemed to have been completed on 28.2.98. The insurance 'was taken as per terms of contract between the Vidyut Nigam and the claimant. Even the insurance policy it is specific the liability of the Insurance Company shall, continue immediately after the fist test operation or test loading is concluded, but in no a se beyond four weeks from the day on which after completion of erection or triad running is made or readiness for work is declared by the contractors which ever date is earlier. The letter dated 31.3.98 says that there was only an inspection and examination and now permission may be given to energize the project. This was only an inspection and report for permission but this letter cannot be taken to be completion report, but there was absolutely no test operation or test loading as mentioned in the policy. It was to be done after the final survey by the department. The department found some defects and after removal of the defects the Executive engineer gave the completion report on 2.8.98. Even after this period the premiums were taken by the insurance company and the insurance was valid up to 11.3.2000 as is clear from the affidavit of the claimant dated 17.11.2001. It is clear from the records that the insurance was effective till the transformers were energized, and the second argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance is also to be rejected. 9. It is clear from the records that the insurance was effective till the transformers were energized, and the second argument of the learned counsel for the Insurance is also to be rejected. 9. As regards the third argument there is specific case of the complainant that there were six transformers. He has submitted the claim before the company for six transformers. He had given the bill for 6. He has given the receipt of the transportation of 6 transformers. He had mentioned the six places where the transformers were installed. He had come with a specific case that he could not satisfy the demand of the surveyor therefore report adverse to his legal claim had been given by the surveyor. The plea to this effect is in para 13 of the complaint. In reply to this para the appellant pleaded in para 13 of the W.S. that no such information was given to the company and that the surveyor is an independent officer and his report is to be accepted by all. The complainant also proved his allegations by the affidavit of Kashmiri Lal dated 23-7-2001. In his counter affidavit, Sri. R.S. Rathore Branch Manager only alleged that Sri Dinesh Kumar Saxena investigated the matter and submitted his report. Sri Rathore proved the report and signature of Sri Saxena. Sri Saxena did not file any affidavit that there was no demand by Sri Saxena. Even otherwise, the allegation was against Sri Sexena, It is who should have denied by his affidavit. Secondly the report of the surveyor could not have been proved in this way. The affidavit of the surveyor himself was necessary to prove the report and to deny the allegations. 10. On facts it was proved that there were 6 transformers. 11. Other facts were not at all disputed. The quantum of the claim otherwise was not at all challenged. It could not be disputed that the transformers were damaged in heavy rains during the insurance period. 12. This appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. However costs in the circumstances of the case should be easy. ORDER The appeal is dismissed. Costs easy.