ORDER 08th July, 2008 — This appeal has been directed against the order dated 23.10.2006 of the District Forum, Jajpur in C.D. Case No.123 of 2005 directing opposite party No.2 (appellant No.2) to pay Rupees 30,000/- towards damage of cowshed with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of insurance claim till payment with litigation expense of rupees 1,000/- to the complainant/respondent within a period of two months in the form of Bank Draft/Cheque. 2. Admittedly, complainant entered into Farmer’s Package Insurance Policy bearing No.53205/9700001/97-98 in respect to a house and a cowshed belonging to him with opposite party No.2. The policy period is from 24.04.1997 to 23.04.1998. As per the policy condition, the Insurance Company is to indemnify the insured in respect to the loss of or damage to the contents/buildings in case of storm, tempest, typhoon, cyclone etc. 3. Complainant’s case in brief is that during the insur¬ance period on 13.03.1998 at 10 p.m. due to unprecedented heavy cyclone, his cowshed covered under the policy has been completely demolished and damaged causing him a loss of rupees 35,000/-. So he intimated opposite party No.2 on 16.03.1998. Opposite party No.2 had deputed a surveyor who had inspected the spot but did not submit actual state of affairs since complainant did not listen as said surveyor demanded illegal gratification. Complain¬ant had also applied to the Tahasildar for financial help as a result of which the Tahasildar with R.I. visited the spot and assessed damage of the cowshed as per Tahasildar’s report dated 24.02.1999 (Annexure-4) rupees 30,000/-. Though complainant inti¬mated this fact to opposite party No.2 and orally requested several times and requested vide letter dated 22.06.1999 yet he did not settle the claim. Therefore, he moved Hon’ble High Court filing OJC No.3133 of 2000 where Hon’ble High Court had directed Insurance Company to settle the claim basing upon the report of the Tahasildar. After this complainant, filed Misc. Case No.1348 of 2004 and Insurance Company filed Misc. Case No.2147 of 2001. The Hon’ble High Court passed common order on 21.06.2005 in both the Misc. Cases giving an option to the complainant to file case in proper forum as this claim has been settled as “no claim”. Therefore, he filed the C.D. case claiming loss, damage, compen¬sation and cost of litigation rupees 47,000/- against the oppo¬site parties. 4. Case No.2147 of 2001. The Hon’ble High Court passed common order on 21.06.2005 in both the Misc. Cases giving an option to the complainant to file case in proper forum as this claim has been settled as “no claim”. Therefore, he filed the C.D. case claiming loss, damage, compen¬sation and cost of litigation rupees 47,000/- against the oppo¬site parties. 4. The case of the opposite parties in brief is that, Surveyor Sri Bijay Kumar Mohapatra, verified at the spot on 18.03.1998 and reported that the cowshed is not damaged due to cyclone. Therefore, opposite party No.2 repudiated the claim as “no claim and intimated this in writing dated 22.06.1988 through registered post which complainant did not receive. True copy of postal receipt with such endorsement has been filed by the oppo¬site parties. The opposite party No.2 has also intimated com¬plainant about repudiation of claim vide letter dated 28.06.1999 (xerox copy of the letter is filed). According to them, as the cowshed of the complainant is not damaged due to storm or cy¬clone, complainant is not entitled to claim. Also in view of clause 10 of the Farmer’s Package as complainant has not ap¬proached Court of law within 12 calendar months, his claim is barred by time. 5. Going through the case of both parties, the District Forum arrived into a finding taking into consideration the above mentioned report of the Tahasildar that actually the cowshed has been damaged due to storm. Therefore, complainant is entitled as claim rupees 30,000/- towards damage of the cowshed and passed the impugned orders. The appellants have challenged this order filing the present appeal. 6. We have heard the learned counsels from both sides and perused the material on record. 7. Following points arise for consideration before us; (i) Was cowshed of the complainant damaged due to storm/cyclone ? (ii) Whether filing of this C.D. case is hit in view of clause 10 of the Farmer’s Package Policy ? (iii) How far the impugned order of the District Forum is sustainable ? 8. In respect to aforesaid point No.(i), it may be stated that the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim depending on the report of the surveyor that the cowshed is not damaged due to cyclonic storm and entire claim appears to be false. (iii) How far the impugned order of the District Forum is sustainable ? 8. In respect to aforesaid point No.(i), it may be stated that the Insurance Company has repudiated the claim depending on the report of the surveyor that the cowshed is not damaged due to cyclonic storm and entire claim appears to be false. The learned counsel for the appellants urged referring the decision reported in (2001) 10 Supreme Court Cases 19 and II (2004) CPJ 1 (NC) that the impugned orders of the District Forum suffers from serious miscarriage of justice for not considering the aforesaid report of the independent surveyor, for which the impugned orders of the District Forum is vitiated. It is a fact that the surveyor’s report has got much bearing to the nature of dispute when the surveyor himself has visited the spot and submitted his enquiry report. In the present case, the surveyor when arrived at the spot, he had seen the damages state of cowshed and concluded that the damage of the cowshed was not due to cyclonic storm, the surveyor has not denied that their was a cyclone at the vicinity at the time and date of occurrence and no witnesses have been examined by him to show that there was no cyclone and the damage of the cowshed is man made. The Taha¬sildar is a responsible Government authority who on natural course of official conduct has issued a certificate (Annexure-4) certifying that the cowshed of the complainant/respondent has been destroyed by strong wind on 13.03.1998 at 10 p.m. and the approximate value of the property lost may be rupees 30,000/-. This report, the Tahasildar, Binjharpur has given relying upon the report of the Revenue Supervisor. No materials are forthcom¬ing from where it can be derived that the Revenue Supervisor has given a false information basing upon which the Tahasildar, Binj¬harpur has given such report as per Annexure-4. In these circum¬stances, the aforesaid report of the Tahasildar, Binjharpur must prevail upon the aforesaid report of the surveyor. Therefore, the District Forum has committed no miscarriage of justice in holding the loss of cowshed due to cyclonic storm relying upon the afore¬said report of the Tahasildar (Annexure-4). This point is thus decided in affirmative. 9. In these circum¬stances, the aforesaid report of the Tahasildar, Binjharpur must prevail upon the aforesaid report of the surveyor. Therefore, the District Forum has committed no miscarriage of justice in holding the loss of cowshed due to cyclonic storm relying upon the afore¬said report of the Tahasildar (Annexure-4). This point is thus decided in affirmative. 9. In respect to aforesaid point No.(ii), there cannot be any doubt about it that the condition as per Clause-10 of the Farmer’s Package Policy is binding to both the parties. The insured must make claim within 12 calendar months from the date of intimation about no claim. It is seen from their written ver¬sion of the opposite parties that vide letter dated 22.06.1988, the Insurance Company had intimated complainant about repudiation of claim through registered post. As the registered post was not received by the complainant, it is deemed that such a post has been received by the complainant. Therefore, repudiation of claim has been intimated to the complainant vide letter dated 22.06.1988. Opposite party No.2 asserts to have again intimated complainant about repudiation of the claim vide letter dated 28.06.1999. The complainant has not filed the C.D. Case within 12 calendar months from the date of repudiation of claim. He has filed the C.D. Case on 11.11.2005 much after no claim was inti¬mated to him since 22.06.1988. He has not satisfactorily ex¬plained the delay in filing the C.D. Case on 11.11.2005 also. Therefore, not only the complainant has violated policy condition 10 but also, has filed the C.D. case beyond two years period of limitation from the time of cause of action. In this respect, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied on a decision reported in IV 1993 (I) CPR at page 713 of the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, where it has been held that the insured has abandoned his right by not filing the suit or taking any action within 12 months from the date of repudia¬tion of claim by the insurer company and insurer company is not liable to pay the claim under the policy. He has also relied on another decision reported in 1997 (4) Supreme at page 615 where it has been held that if the claim is not pressed within 12 months from happening of any loss or damage in view of the for¬feiture clause of the policy, the insurer shall cease to be liable. In these end of the view the C.D. Case is not maintain¬able. 10. In respect to aforesaid point no. (iii), we have no hesitation to say that the District Forum has not acted illegally or exercised jurisdiction incorrectly by awarding compensation towards loss and damage of the cowshed rupees 30,000/- basing upon the aforesaid report of the Tahasildar (Annexure-4). The report of the Tahasildar has justified the damage of the cowshed of the complainant due to cyclonic wind at the relevant point of time on 13.03.1998. But the fact remains that the case of the complainant is hit in view of Clause 10 of the Farmer’s Package Policy as narrated above as well as the C.D. case has been filed beyond the period of limitation of two years from the time of cause of action as per Section 24A of the C.P. Act, 1986, in which score the complainant is not entitled to succeed raising claim against the appellants filing the C.D. Case. Therefore, on the point of limitation as discussed above the C.D. Case is not maintainable and the impugned orders dated 23.10.2006 of the Jajpur District Forum deserve to be set-aside. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed on contest without cost in the circumstance. The impugned orders dated 23.10.2006 of the District Forum in C.D. Case No.123 of 2005 is hereby set-aside. Records received from the District Forum may be sent back forthwith. Appeal allowed.