Back
BIHAR STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PATNA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N. Sinha, President;
Mr. K.P. Sinha & Mrs. Kalpana Ashok, Members
M/S. MONA SILK—Complainant
versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.—Opp. Party
Complaint Case No. 12 of 1991—Decided on 5.2.1993
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant :Mr. Harendra N. Sinha, Advocate.
For the Opp. Party :Mr. Manoranjan Kr. Sihna, Advocate.
The Insurance Company is liable to pay the claim under the Burglary Insurance Policy if the insured is the owner of the stolen goods and the claim is covered under the Policy. The Insurance Company is also liable to pay compensation for the loss suffered by the insured due to the negligence of the Insurance Company in settling the claim.
Headnote:
INSURANCE - BURGLARY INSURANCE - CLAIM - DELAY IN SETTLEMENT - NEGLIGENCE OF INSURANCE COMPANY - COMPENSATION AWARDED.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, M/s. Mona Silk, filed a complaint against the National Insurance Company Limited for non-settlement of their claim under the Burglary Insurance Policy No. 7502200 of 1989-90 in respect of theft of silk fabric and silk yarns committed in the night of 28th and 29th September, 1989 from the insured premises of the complainant. The Insurance Company appointed two surveyors to assess the loss, but the claim was not settled due to various reasons, including the contention that the complainant was only a commission agent and not the owner of the stolen goods.
Finding of the Court:
The State Commission held that the complainant was the owner of the stolen goods and that the claim was covered under the Insurance Policy. The Commission also found that the Insurance Company was negligent in settling the claim, resulting in financial losses to the complainant.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant was the owner of the stolen goods and whether the claim was covered under the Insurance Policy? 2. Whether the Insurance Company was negligent in settling the claim?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Commission relied on the order of M/s. Bharat Silk, which showed that the complainant was not a commission agent but was responsible for the production of fabrics for M/s Bharat Silk. The Commission also noted that the complainant was registered as a Small Scale Unit of the Government of Bihar, which is granted after due inquiries by the Industries Department. 2. The Commission found that the Insurance Company did not take any interest in obtaining the report of the Second Surveyor till one and a half years of his appointment, which was clearly a case of negligence on the part of the Insurance Company.
Final Decision: The Commission directed the Insurance Company to pay Rs. 1,12,612 to the complainant within three months from the date of the order.
Mr. K.P. Sinha, Member—This is a complaint filed by M/s. Mona Silk, Burha Nath Road, Bhagalpur (hereinafter referred to as the complainant against the National Insurance Company Limited, Bhagalpur Branch ( hereinafter referred to as the O.P for non-settlement of their claim under the Burglary Insurance Policy No. 7502200 of 1989-90 in respect of theft of silk fabric sand silk yarns, committed in the night of 28th and 29th September, 1989 from the insured premises of the complainant. An FIR about the above theft was lodged with the Kotwali Police Station who registered Bhagalpur Kolwali P.S. Case No.607dated 29.9.1989 for the above theft. On 29th September itself the Branch Manager of the National Insurance Company was informed about the incident of theft. A surveyor was deputed by the Insurance Company who visited the premises and collected relevant information’s. Subsequently on 24th October, 1989 another surveyor of the National Insurance Company visited the insured premises and again collected detailed information of the incident as well as the total stock position since 1.4.1989 till the date of occurrence i.e. till 28.9.1989. The police after completing the investigation submitted final report on the complaint made by the complainant as “Case true no clue” u/Sec. 457/380 of the Indian Penal Code. This final report of the police was accepted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate. It is alleged by the complainant that in spite of above facts several reminders, telephonic talks and personal visits of the complainant the Insurance Company did not take any decision in the matter of his claim relating to that the Burglary Policy No. 7502200 taken by the complainant from the opposite party which was valid till 28th June, 1990. The complainant has, therefore, claimed a total sum of Rs. 1,92,667.50 against the O.Ps. comprising of the following items : -
(a) The amount representing the
value of goods stolen at Rs. 77,667.50
(b) Compound interest charged
by the Bank on the claimed amount at Rs. 25,000.00
(c) Estimated business loss suffered
for 18th months @ Rs. 5000/- per month Rs. 90,000.00
Total: Rs. 1,92,667.50
2. In the written statement filed on behalf of the National Insurance Company in connection with the above allegation of the complainant it has been mentioned that there was no proof of any deliberate latches or harassment by the Insurance Company and they depute a surveyor to the spot to assess the loss immediately on the receipt of information with regard to the theft. The surveyor was to assess the loss on spot and quantified the damage if any. On receipt of the report from this surveyor the O.Ps. again entrusted the job to another surveyor to investigate the matter and assess the actual loss in terms of the policy of contract. It is contended by the O.Ps that on submission of his detailed report the claim was found to be exaggerated and non-standard and that the incident of theft was also not proved beyond all reasonable doubt and the incident has been narrated to have occurred in a very suspicious manner casting as pension on the veracity of the statement. The actual loss was assessed by the surveyor at Rs. 34,935/-. It has also been contended in the written statement that the complainant was a Commission Agent and not the owner of the property said to be stolen. This contention has been made in view of the observations made in the report of the Second Surveyor. It has further been contended by the O.Ps that in case of any dispute with regard to the question of the claim the matter shall have to be referred for arbitration and further that since the claim has been repudiated the complainant could only take recourse to instituting money claim before a competent civil Court and, therefore, it has been prayed that in the light of these facts the complaint should be dismissed on ground of maintainability as well as on facts.
3. In reply to these contentions made in the written statement of the O.Ps rejoinder has been filed
