(Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President):

This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 06.11.2007 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 297 of 2006, whereby the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellant – opposite party to pay compensation of Rs. 82,343.25/- to the respondent – complainant together with interest @ 6% p.a. pendente lite and future and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant – Sh. Mange Ram had got the building, furnace, chimney, plant and machinery, finished goods, semi-finished goods and raw material of his proprietorship concern M/s Mahalaxmi Fire Brick Udyog, insured with the appellant– The New India Assurance Company Limited for the period from 07.02.2004 to 06.02.2005 under Burglary Insurance Policy. During the currency of the policy of insurance, theft took place in the insured premises on 04.12.2004, which was reported to the police and a case was registered bearing Case Crime No. 488 of 2004. The complainant also gave intimation of theft to the insurance company and lodged the claim with the insurance company and submitted all the relevant documents. But the insurance company did not settle the claim of the complainant and, as such, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the insurance company, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar.

3. The insurance company filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant did not supply the required documents; that the consumer complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party, i.e., Bank of Baroda; that the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 07.10.2005 on the ground that theft was not covered under the policy as the stolen machinery was lying open without guard; that the intimation of theft was given to the insurance company on 29.12.2004, whereas the theft took place on 04.12.2004; that Sh. Arvind Yadav was appointed as surveyor, who has submitted his report dated 19.06.2005 to the insurance company, stating therein that most of the plant and machinery was affixed in open and the claim was not covered; that the claim was rightly repudiated and that there is no deficiency in service on their part.

4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 06.11.2007 in the above manner. Aggrieved by the said order, the insurance company has filed this appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6. There is no dispute with regard to the incident of theft in the insured premises during the validity of insurance policy. The insurance company has taken the stand that there was delay on the part of the complainant in giving intimation of the theft to the insurance company and also that the loss was not covered under the policy because the stolen machinery was lying open without guard and, as such, the claim of the complainant was repudiated by the insurance company per letter dated 07.10.2005.

7. The complainant is running a proprietorship concern under the name and style of M/s Mahalaxmi Fire Brick Udyog, of which he is the proprietor. The business of brick manufacturing is carried out in open area and the furnace and machinery are kept together at a near distance from each other. If the insurance company was of the opinion that the business premises is open, then they should not have insured the same and also the plant and machinery lying therein. So far as taking care of the insured property by the complainant is concerned, we find force in the submission of the insurance company that the complainant has failed to take proper and reasonable care of the insured property. Sh. Rama, the watchman engaged by the complainan