J.M. Malik, J.— 1. The factory and goods belonging to M/s. Vee Kay Cotsyn Ltd, Mumbai, the complainant, were gutted in a huge fire and the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.2,57,50,464/- with interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of loss/fire, i.e. on 23.05.1997, till realization. The complainant company is manufacturing cotton, synthetic and blended yarn at Pusad. Raw material used for fabricating the yarn with the help of spindles is cotton and polyster. It is carrying out the spinning activities at Pusad, since 1992 and since then is getting its work insured under various policies issued by United India Insurance Co.Ltd., OP. The complainant obtained fire policy ‘C’ and paid premium in the sum of Rs.8,29,640/- for the sum assured to the tune of Rs.23,45,45,000/-. All the insured particulars such as building construction, machinery and assessories, humidity fication, Elect.Install F.F.F., stock of cotton, fibers, semi-finished and finished cotton yarn and others, were mentioned. 2. The insurance company, OP, repudiated the above said claim of the complainant vide letter dated 08.01.1998, which runs as follows:- “We regret to repudiate our liability to pay your above claim. Pursuant to detailed statutory survey and special investigations into the alleged occurrence following it, we have noticed several irreconcilable inconsistencies and improbabilities in the alleged occurrence, the reported knowledge thereof, duration, effect, unusual conduct and matters relating to inventories and stocks held, etc. All these individually as well as collectively, lead us to irresistibly conclude that condition 8 of the policy has been willfully and knowingly breached, resulting in forfeiture of the benefits under the concerned policy. Lapses noticed, inconsistencies and improbabilities observed, inter alia, are :- i) The precise cause of alleged fire could not be established. ii) The documents submitted, show inconsistencies as to the duration of fire and knowledge thereof. iii) The surveyors have conclusively established that at the time of the alleged fire, the godown did not contain any fully pressed cotton bales for which claim was lodged. iv) The salvage/debris left-over, after the alleged huge fire was not available for inspection of the surveyors. v) The relevant records pertaining to the period preceeding the alleged occurrence, viz, godown records, gate (inward) records were very sketchy and records for incoming storage and issues for consumption were not produced to substantiate the claim. vi) Physical evidence observed for surveyor also and not support the alleged occurrence of huge fire. v) The relevant records pertaining to the period preceeding the alleged occurrence, viz, godown records, gate (inward) records were very sketchy and records for incoming storage and issues for consumption were not produced to substantiate the claim. vi) Physical evidence observed for surveyor also and not support the alleged occurrence of huge fire. Thus, by all counts the claim lodged by you is not found tenable within the meaning of condition No.8 of the policy and here your claim is therefore repudiated. We request you to please bear with this decision. _____________