IMPORTANT POINT
When stock in shop was insured against risk of Burglary & house breaking, demolition of shop & consequent loss of stock by Municipal Corporation could not be said covered under policy.

M.S. Parikh, President- By way of this complaint, the complainants have prayed for complainant No.2 compensation in the sum of Rs.8,10,500/-, miscellaneous/legal expenses in the sum of Rs.1,000/ - and cost in the sum of Rs.500/- on following brief allegations of facts.

2. Complainant No.2 got the stock of his shop insured with the opponent Insurance Company. He also availed of cash credit facility for his stock from Bank of Bardoa, Pandmavati Branch. He accordingly got the cash credit facility for the period of three years before the date of the complaint and got also the insurance for the stock of chappals, shoes and other articles in his shop in the name and style of Novelty Chappal Stores located opposite Sursagar, Padmavati Chowgan, Vadodara. The insurance was in the sum of Rs.7,60,000/ - as per the policy of insurance for the period from 3.7.1997 to 2.7.1998 as per the policy particulars set out in the complaint.

3. It is the complainant's case that under the mass demolition drive of shops by the Municipal Corporation of Vadodara, aforesaid shop which was existing for last 40 years was instantly demolished on 3.8.1997 without giving any chance to the complainant to remove the insured stock. This resulted into demolition of not only the shop premises but also loss to stock. The complainant sent written representation to the opponent Insurance Company to supply claim forms for preferring claim for loss of stock. But the opponent Insurance Company regretted the very availability of the claim expressing its inability to send the claim form. The complainants have, therefore, prayed fur com pensation in the sum of Rs.3,50,000/- for the risk of fire and allied peril, in the sum of Rs.3,50,000/ for the risk of burglary and housebreaking, Rs.8,500/- for money insurance breaking, Rs.1,000/ - towards compensation on the head of mental agony and hardship, and Rs.2,000/ - in respect of neon and glow and baggage insurance, in all Rs.8,10,500/-. The opponent Insurance Company has resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that it is not maintainable at law, that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent Insurance Company, that the shop keepers' policy in question which is a written contract does not provide for alleged peril, that Bank of Boroda being pawnee has not been joined as party although the contract of insurance in question is with Bank of Baroda, that there are highly disputed questions of facts and law requiring detailed evidence and, therefore, the complainant should be relegated to the Civil Court, that maximum sum insured under items A and B of the policy would not exceed Rs.5 lakhs and the claim has been grossly exaggerated by the complainants, that the Vadodara Municipal Corporation is governed under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 and it has given notice of 30 days to remove the structure after getting and hearing objections in respect of the street line and since the impugned shop happened to be illegal construction, the Corporation removed it as unauthorised construction and, therefore, the opponent Insurance Company would "not be liable for any consequential loss. The opponent has further asserted that as a prudent person complainant No. 2 ought to have taken reasonable steps to safeguard the stock of chappals and shoes and other articles lying in the shop. The complainants have also not stated the exact amount of loss occurred as a result of the aforesaid f demolition drive undertaken by the Vadodara Municipal Corporation. The opponent Insurance Company has(sic) denied the allegations of facts and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint with cost.

4. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. Reference has first been made to a decision of the honourable High Court of Gujarat dated 7.8.1997 in Special Civil Application No.3420 of 1997 and other matters and then to a decision of a Division Bench rendered in Letters Patent Appeal No. 917/1997 and other matter