IMPORTANT POINT
Story of theft has to be proved by cogent evidence.

V.R. Kingaonkar, Presiding Member—This appeal arises out of judgement rendered by Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case no. 09/99. By the impugned judgement, the complaint of the appellant came to be dismissed.

2. Briefly stated, the appellant’s case before the State Commission was that he was dealing in business of Gulf, Bharat Shell, Waxpol lubricants, Air Conditioners, etc. in the name and style of “M/s. Devangana Associates” at Agra. The stock kept in the shop premises had been insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd. under insurance policy against loss due to fire, burglary, P/L by CLT. The sum assured under the policy was Rs.5 lakh. The period of insurance was from 9.11.1996 to 8.11.1997. The business of the appellant was increased and, therefore, he took another policy from the respondent no. 1 which covered the stock in the building, shop, godown and all places of the trading. The insurance policy issued by the respondent no. 1 vide no. 13980/96 dated 1.02.1997 was for a sum assured of Rs.15,75,000/-. The insurance period was between 1.2.1997 till 31.1.1998. In the evening falling between 24th and 25th July 1997, an incident of burglary took place in his godown. Some unknown culprits had opened the godown by breaking locks and the shutters. In the morning of 25.07.1997, he received a telephonic information about the theft and burglary. He went to the godown and found that some of the items were lying in disorderly manner. He gave information to New Agra Police Station. On basis of his complaint, an FIR was registered for offence under section 380 of I.P. Code and crime under 401 of 1997 was investigated by the Police. He was mentally disturbed due to the occurrences of the incident and, therefore, did not give details of the goods which were burgled. He later on submitted the list of stolen goods. He gave intimation to the respondent no. 1 about the loss. He urged the respondents to re-investigate the matter. The respondent no. 1 (insurer) repudiated the claim on the ground that there was no burglary in the godown and the loss was not caused to him. Consequently, he filed the complaint.

3. The respondents denied truth into all the material averments made by the appellant / complainant. The respondents alleged that the appellant failed to establish incident of burglary in the godown. The respondent no. 1 came out with a case that the inquiry made by the surveyor indicated ‘stage managed’ case of loss put forth by the appellant. There was no forceful entry in the godown nor things were stolen away by use of criminal force. The appellant, in fact, had less transactions of Waxpol and Gulf items. The agency for sale of Waxpol lubricants or engine oil was discontinued from Jan. 1997 and, therefore, the appellant could not have stocked huge quantity of the said items, valued at Rs.5,33,786.42ps. The respondent no. 1, therefore, justified the repudiation of the claim.

4. On merits, the State Commission held that the appellant failed to prove that there was burglary in the godown during the relevant night. The State Commission also came to the conclusion that items of Waxpol were unavailable in the godown of the appellant and moreover there was no sufficient proof to infer that the appellant had stocked such huge quantity of the lubricants in the godown. Hence, the complaint was dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the relevant documents filed by the parties in support of their contentions.

6. Clinching question is whether the appellant proved that the premises of the godown had been subjected to burglary in the night between 24th and 25th July 1997 and during course of such incident his stock of Waxpol lubricants, engine oil, Gulf lubricants, stabilizers etc. was lost.

7. Before we embark upon scrutiny of the evidence adduced by the parties, let it be no