IMPORTANT POINT
Insurer can not take technical issue at belated stage.

ORDER

Shyamal Gupta, Member—The complaint case filed by M/s BCPL Railway Infrastructure Ltd., in a short compass, is that, M/s U.K. Construction and Bapi Construction are the units of M/s BCPL Railway Infrastructure Ltd. Two Storage cum Erection Insurance Policies vide Nos. 500700/44/10/04/40000031 and 500700/44/10/04/40000032 were taken in the names of U.K. Construction and Bapi Construction, respectively. Both the policies were valid for the period from 19-11-2010 to 18-02-2012 with further extended period up to 18-08-2012. During subsistence of the said policies, an incident of theft took place on 20/21-11-2011 at the godown of the Complainant. The matter was duly communicated to all concerned, including the OP Insurance Company. Accordingly, the OP deputed its Surveyor, who carried out extensive survey for days together. The claims of the Complainant being repudiated by the OP subsequently, feeling dejected, the Complainant filed the complaint case.

2. On notice, the OP turned up before this Commission through its Ld. Advocate. It was submitted by the OP that the policies were taken by both U.K. Construction and Bapi Construction almost two years since dissolution of the said firms. According to the OP, the said policies were taken by the concerned firms as juristic persons albeit those entities did not have any independent existence and none of the entities had any Balance Sheet and on the contrary both the entities provided documents stating that they merged with a new company called Bapi Construction & Electrical Engineering Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 01-04-2008. A Deed of Dissolution of Bapi Construction was notorized on 05-05-2008 and an agreement of takeover of business by U. K. Construction was also notorized on the same day. As the said policies were taken in the names of non-existent firms, according to the OP, the said policies stood void and accordingly, no liability under the subject policies could be impounded upon it. Further case of the OP was that, the Surveyor noted various anomalies in respect of the subject claims of the Complainant. Therefore, considering all aspects, the instant claims were repudiated.

3. The moot point for determination is whether the Complainant deserves any relief or not.

4. Ld. Advocate for the OP argued that admittedly, M/s U. K. Construction and Bapi Construction were dissolved in the year 2008 and therefore, it was highly improper on their part to take the subject insurance policies in the said names in the year 2010.

5. It appears that the Complainant obtained legal opinion from M/s Mukherjee & Biswas, Solicitors & Advocates in this regard. In the opinion of the said Solicitor firm, communicated vide its letter dated 03-03-2009, the Complainant could do business in the names of Bapi Construction and U. K. Construction provided description was given as BCPL Railway Infrastructure Ltd. Unit Bapi Construction and BCPL Railway Infrastructure Ltd. Unit U. K. Construction, respectively. The only bar was that it could not operate the bank accounts stood in the names of Bapi Construction and U. K. Construction.

6. It appears from the record that the insurance policies were taken in the names of Bapi Construction and U. K. Construction incorporating further therein that the same were unit of BCPL Railway Infrastructure Ltd.

7. Admittedly, the Complainant made frank and candid disclosure about the actual state of affairs while taking the policies in question. Despite knowing such developments, as it did not raise any objection, I am of opinion that, at this stage, the OP cannot rake up this technical issue.

8. Ld. Advocate for the OP also disputed the admissibility of the subject claims on the ground that there was palpable discrepancy in the contents of FIR lodged with concerned Police Station vis-à-vis Complainant’s letter addressed to M/s S. N. Associates dated 29-01-2013.

9. On a reference to the entire case record, however, I did not come across the purported letter dated 29-01-2013, as alleg