National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S Spenta International Ltd. vs M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd. on 30 March, 2026
IN THE NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 145 OF 2015
M/s Spenta International Ltd. ..... Complainant (s)
Registered Office
Plot No. 13,14,15 and 16, Dewan Industrial Estate
Village Navali
Dist. Thane, Palghar-401404
Administrative Office at
86 & 87 Empire Building
2nd Floor
134/136, Dr. D N Road
Mumbai-400 001
Versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. ....... Opp.Party (s)
Divisional Office No.9
5th Floor, Rohit chambers
Janamabhoomi Marg
Fort
Mumbai-400 001
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.P.SAHI, PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. BHARAT KUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER
For the Complainant(s) MR. RAKESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE
For the OP(s) MR. RAJESH K. GUPTA, ADVOCATE
Pronounced on:
CC/145/2O15 Page 1 of 48
Is
ORDER
A. P. SAHI, J (PRESIDENT) The present Complaint raises the grievance of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Insurance Company by not settling an insurance claim in respect of an incident of fire, which the Complainant claims to be covered as a risk under Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy that was valid for the period 14.06.2008 to 13.06.2009. The Complainant is in the business of yarn processing and manufacturing socks for export. It had secured its goods under the said policy and had paid the premium for it.
According to the Complainant and his allegations, 2 of its employees, namely, Prashant Naik and Vipul Rane committed theft in the intervening night of 25.08.2008 / 26.08.2008, as a result whereof 17 cartons of socks were stolen by them and the Complainant further suspected that in order to remove and erase any evidence of the said act, they also set the premises on fire. Thus, the loss was due to the .,, theft as also due to fire.
The Insurance Company is stated to have been intimated about the said loss and claim was lodged on 27.08.2008. It is also stated that fire tenders had been called to douse the fire, for which reliance has been placed on Fire Report No. 102 of 2008 that has been filed on record. A report with the Police Station was lodged on 06.09.2008 and according to the investigations, the accused were chargesheeted for the offences CC/145/2O15 Page 2 of48 of theft as well as arson. A Forensic Laboratory Report was also sought by the police for which samples were sent on 31.12.2008. A preliminary Survey was conducted and report was submitted on 03.09.2008 by M/s A.P.Phadge and Company. Subsequently, a Final Report was tendered by the Surveyor on 06.01.2009. The Insurance Company did not settle the claim or pass any order and instead made certain queries , to which replies were given by the Complainant as the Insurance Company was awaiting the outcome of the police investigation.
After the submission of the Surveyor Report, a Forensic Laboratory Report dated 16.04.2009 was received by the police indicating that the test for any extraneous material having been used for fire like kerosene was negative. The Fire Report dated 13.07.2009 stated that the supposed cause of fire was still under investigation and was, therefore, unknown.
The Insurance Company as indicated above, neither repudiated the claim nor settled it as a result whereof the Complainant made a request to the Insurance Company to do the needful and to settle the claim, keeping in view the Surveyor's Report so as to indemnify the loss. Since the claim was not settled, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 144 of 2010 on 25.08.2010 before the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, claiming an amount of Rs.84,99,951/-.
CC/145/2O15 Page 3 of 48
9. The pleadings were exchanged before the State Commission and the affidavits of evidence were filed and when the matter proceeded for hearing, State Commission came to the conclusion that it had no pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter and accordingly passed an order, I returning the Complaint on 01.12.2014. The order dated 01.12.2024 is extracted hereinunder:
CC/145/2O15 Page 4 of 48
III LORI till MINIM I 'r kit t O\'.I 'lilt DISII I I '.1(1 uursSAI.
( t)\I\ll,tll)\, \t UI ut \sII I R \, %Il \tn.v ( nmpl.intt l .i%c \u. t ( li1l'lad 'h vIv ry Itin,ArIovAl lit).
\o ,t 14. 1 S . nd lo, De%%an Indl I%tatc.
\,ea.tu. Dot. Dune, I'alrlLr 4111 404, td, mn 4t Co \huhh f ut ea Pct I. id., t'ot \0 2. sector No 1. lien an .t Suns. 1 do Nagar. 1u%wit. Palghar, Dist. Thane \dmmnmru%e Office Sh & y, Empire Building. 2"'I Flax, ';4 136. Dr.D.N. Road.
\tumb.n - 400001. . ..1'umplcmani(;1 Versus L NI ( ED INDIA INSURANCE Cu. LTD..
Regd. Office in:
24, Shucs Road, Chennai 600 014 and Unisional Office No.'Q', Rohn Chambers, 5'h Floor.
Janmabhoomi Marg, Fort.
Mumba i '-40000! Unp IPUna t h t
H EFORE:
uON'BLs gt. r.u..to,hi PRESIDING \IEMHER ' S.
HOR'BLE Mlt. Narendra Kande AIEMBEI( I'RFSEN'r: Adcocute Mr.A.\1. \'ernelmr for the Compluinwu Advocate Mr.Mchtn for the Ottnonent. `, \ t • ORDER Per Hon'ble Mr. P. B. Joshi-- Pre¼tdunc ludicial Member:
(l) Complainant has obtained Standard Fire and Special Peril; Policy from the opponent On 26111 August, 2008 tire broke out in ;_udo%tnt of Complainant. After getting information about the tire the C'ntnplainant informed about it on the same day. A fire was extinguished and panchanama was recorded by the police. On the next day i.e. on 27.08.2008, the Complainant informed to opponent about the incident and loss suffered. The opponent appointed surveyor. On Uo.0Y.20US Complainant filed F.LR. against its two employees suspecting about the mischief committed by them in setting of fire in the said godowwn tin 0''I64 100.72.12/ncdrercpjudgcmcntl210 N1205UId415.i6t'•Idd-201uhuu I' 'I'!.
r.~t c . of 4 1"f Ili) %ever, it was mentioned in the 4 tt_.:rttN Stan esor suhmitted its report.
as the police in~estigatinn is not over, exact cause of tire itr report that submitted his claim to opponent. The not known. C.>mplainunt report. The building insured was opponent called for fire brigade July, 2009. A report from the reconstructed by the Complainant on 13'I' and it was given to the Fire brigade was received by the Complainant charge-sheet against two opponent. The police have submitted incident. In spite of employees ofthe Complainant in respect of said fire this information the opponent has not settled the claim of the complainant and hence, Complainant has filed consumer complaint against the opponent and prayed for direction to the opponent to make payment ofRs.S4,99.951/- in settlement of the claim of the complainant for the loss suffered together with interest @l S% per annum as provided by Regulation 9(5) of I.R.D.A. Regulations 2001 w.e.f., Gth February, 2009. Complainant also prayed that the direction may be given to the opponent to pay to the Complainant damages of Rs.50.00,000L on account of mental torture, mental agony suffered by the Complainant on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and the loss of opportunity of business due to non-availabii wSF--dt ds to the Complainant. Complainant has also claimed EstI:ofPh50 t~ of the complaint.
(27 Opponent resisted the complaint by filing 4tt'e n version.Opptytunt has not disputed about the insurance policy. i l \er, contend41 At the false and frivolous complaint has been filed by' B Coi pRtni ` It was contended by the opponent that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opponent. It was contended that the claim made by Complainant is illegal and illogical. It is an attempt from the Complainant to illegally extract compensation from the opponent. Opponent prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
(3) Considering the rival contentions of the parties, considering record tutd submissions made before us following points arise for our determination and our findings thereon are noted against them for the reasons gt~en below:
hup:o.I64.100,.72.12Inedrettptjud gcmtnv21 tll 4120513144153(,C-144-2UI0.htm 12,1211t~ Page 3 uta _ I~inJin_L± Whether this Commission has : tNr)• pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
\Whether there is deficiency in Does not survive. service on the part of the opponents?
Whether the Complainant is : Does not survive.
entitled for the amounts
claimed?
What. order? As, i:Cbrd e--r bb w. ,;
j -
Reasons:
4e
~,t . -
Point No.(U.:
at _Opgont≤nt be
In the prayer clause (A) Complainant has prayc~' ment of the claim of directed to make payment of Rs.S4,99,951/- in settle @I5% per annum as the Complainant for the loss suffered with interest 6th s 2001 w.e.f.
provided in Regulation 9(5) of I.R.D.A. Regulation February, 2009.
the period prior to filing When the Complainant is claiming interest for plainant to calculate the of the complaint then it is necessary for the Com and mention the specific interest till the date of filing of complaint claim for deciding pecuniary amount as that is the part of the of Rs.84,99,951/- a IS% per jurisdiction. The interest on amount till the date of filing of the annum for the period 6th February, 2009 certainly come to more than complaint i.e. 25111 August, 2010 will complainant exceeds to lls.1 Rs.16,00,000%. Thus, the claim of the jurisdiction of this Commission.
crore and hence, beyond the pecuniary also claimed Rs.50,00,000/- on Apart from. that, Complainant has torture, mental agony suffered by account of compensation for mental r practice and deficiency in Complainant on account of unfai trade the claim amount exceeds to service. If this amount is considered then 53f,C-144-?lu0,1iun I_"'1.1t1.1 hap;"x164.100.72.12/ncdrurcpfjudgemenV210141205131441 I'atec 4 ..t 4 Rs I S crate Thus, it i'. clear that he Cr inplarnt tiled by the curnpLnnan! claiming more than Us.I 5 crore r•+ not '.titihin pecuniary jurisdiction of this Commission hence, we an.wcr pnrt;t no.lil in negative.
Point Nos.(ii) a d iii ;
(7) In view of answer of point no.f i these points do not service. Hence.
we answer all these points accordingly In view of answer of point nn.(i ). criniplaint deserve, to he returned to :':fm Complainant for presenting the aene before the \atinns. Ootgmiuion. I fence, the order:
ORDER J is Commission has no pecuniary Jurisdiction to entertain t:L- t, the complaint is returned to the Cernp.arnant to file ;:c 'fore the National Commissioi, no order as to costs.
?Qtl. -.
'tW t1h)YQLE \1k 1'.H .I..hi;
PRLSIDIM. \tt.\1HHCit
~ r
(ItON'It1.F. 1k. \arcndr.. h.n.dcl
r
- --^, roe
a . rp,
• la-z l:ar
3ta Ccmtt'";_c.
%tameai
I'nry rY org
f
With this development, the present Complaint came to be filed before this Commission on 02.03.2015. The Complaint was taken up on 17.03.2015 when an order was passed calling upon the complainant's counsel to file the final police report and documents pertaining thereto. The compilation of the copies of the police record, namely the investigation and chargesheet was filed on 11.08.2015 before this Commission.
The OP -- Insurance Company filed its written statement on 19.07.2017.
It may by pointed out that this Commission had made an inquiry about the issuance of any repudiation letter. The fact is that no Ii repudiation has taken place nor any such letter had been issued by the Insurance Company either accepting or rejecting the claim of the complainant. The written statement, however, denies any liability on the ground that Complainant has failed to prove the cause of fire and has even otherwise submitted a highly exaggerated claim and is based on documents which are not credit worthy. Other grounds have also been taken with a prayer that complaint be dismissed.
Vide order dated 02.08.2016, an objection with regard to the delay in filing of the complaint in terms of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was decided in favour of the Complainant and parties were called upon to file their evidence. The Insurance Company did not file its evidence within time, as a result whereof, their right to file CC/145/2O15 Page 9 of 48 evidence was closed on 05.12.2019 but on moving of IA No. 1895 of 2020, the order closing the right was sought to be recalled. Unfortunately, the complaint was dismissed in default on 17.05.2023 but was restored on 18.10.2023 and on 16.01.2025 an order was passed on IA No. 1985 of 2020 directing that evidence shall be accepted on the payment of cost that was imposed earlier with an additional cost of Rs.25,000/-. The said amount of Rs.25,000/- has been deposited as is evident from the Office Report dated 12.03.2025.
On 19.03.2025, counsel for the Insurance Company indicated that there were certain documents pertaining to the proceedings before the Criminal Court, which are required to be brought on record. The OP did not file any document but the complainant filed an application on 26.06.2025 vide diary no. 17233 stating therein that the criminal case had concluded with a conviction of the accused vide judgment dated 20.12.2012. A copy of the said judgment of the trial court in Session Case No. 54 of 2010 has also been brought on record by the complainant.
It is in the said background that the parties advanced their submissions on 13.03.2026 when the matter was finally heard.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar, joining online, advanced his submissions by contending that the risk of fire is clearly covered under the policy and consequently, the claim is indemnifiable. He contends that cause of fire has been stated to be unknown in the fire report as well as the CC/145/2015 Page 10 of 48 Surveyor's Report. According to learned counsel, Insurance Company could not succeed in bringing forth any evidence to prove that fire had been caused for any reason attributable to the complainant. He contends that there is nothing to indicate that fire had been caused on account of the complainant either deliberately or negligently. He, therefore, submits that the incident, therefore, is covered for indemnity under clause 1 of the policy and is not excluded in any other clause.
He, therefore, submits that even assuming that cause of fire is indeterminate and is not attributable to the complainant, then too, the claim is indemnifiable.
His next contention is that the Insurance Company has failed to discharge its obligations under the IRDA (Protection of Policyholders' Interest) Regulations 2002, notified on 26.04.2002. He submits that claim ought to have been settled within 30 days under the guidelines for general insurance claim settlements but in any case not later than 6 months, but the Insurance Company sat over it inspite of the fact that complainant continuously communicated with the Surveyor and then thereafter, answered all the queries made by the Insurance Company to satisy them about the loss. It is urged that the Insurance Company kept the matter pending on the pretext of pendency of the criminal proceedings, which resulted in harassment to the complainant and denial of the benefits of the insurance, to which the complainant was legally entitled.
CC/145/2015 Page 11of 48 a
Having failed to get a favourable response, the complaint was filed before the State Commission but unfortunately it was after more than 4 years that it was returned on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The same was promptly filed without any delay before this Commission in 2015 and it is for this reason that this Commission answered the issue of delay in favour of complainant vide its order dated 02.08.2016.
Learned counsel contends that all possible material had been provided and there was no material available with the Insurance Company to deny the claim, yet the complainant was compelled to initiate this litigation. The written statement filed before the State Commission or even before this Commission and the evidence affidavit of the OP does not bring forth any evidence to establish that the complainant in any way was connected with the cause of fire.
To buttress his submissions, he has relied on the decision in the case of Murari Wollen Mills Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited 2005 Vol.111 CPJ 118, which in turn relies on an English case Slatterty Vs. Mance 1962 Vol. I All England Report 526 to urge that once the insured had established that the loss was due to cause of fire, a prima facie case was made out and the onus shifted on the insurer that the fire caused was either connived at by the assured or for any other reason. Mr. Rakesh Kumar submitted that this onus has not been discharged by the insurance company and he further relies on the judgment in the case of the Apex Court in the case of National CC/145/2O15 Page 12 of 48 Insurance Company Vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 decided on 05.01.2004, where it has been enunciated that a person who alleges breach, must prove the same and insurance company is required to establish the breach by cogent evidence.
It is urged that failure to prove any breach of the condition of the condition of the policy by the insured, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability.
Rebutting the said contentions, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the Insurance Company urged that complainant has completely failed to prove his own case of fire. He submits that theft is clearly excluded and is not -indemnifiable and so far as fire is concerned, the needle of suspicion is on the complainant, for which Mr.Gupta also contends that the complainant had withheld the information regarding the conclusion of the criminal trial that had been decided way back on 20.12.2012. Mr. Gupta submits that this trial had ended up in acquittal of the accused in relation to the charge of arson under section 436 IPC. The submission is that this was a vital and relevant information, which the complainant had withheld from the Insurance Company and also did not bring it to the notice of either the State Commission when the complaint was pending in the year 2012 before it nor did it bring it to the notice of this Commission while filing the complaint in 2015. He submits that this fact regarding the incident of fire and arson was relevant but for reasons best known to the complainant, the same was concealed and CC/145/2O15 Page 130148 suppressed in the complaint filed before this Commission. Not only this, the said fact has now come to light after the matter was prodded and probed into by this Commission on the information given on 19.03.2025. He, therefore, submits that this information clearly establishes that the complainant could not succeed in proving arson or the cause of fire as alleged by him in the FIR and even before the Insurance Company. Mr.Gupta submits that failure to prove this fact and the conduct of the complainant in withholding this vital information all combined disentitles the complainant from getting any relief with respect to the claim raised.
Mr. Gupta submits that onus lies on the complainant to establish by way of any other evidence that the fire had been caused on account of its employees or any other cause. The complainant had failed to establish that fire was accidental and in the absence of any such evidence, complainant cannot get any advantage on that count.
Mr. Gupta then submits that the loss reported to the police in the FIR was of Rs.3,50,000/-, which was of misappropriation by the accused. There was absence of evidence with regard to the loss due to fire before the Criminal Court. Complainant has failed to explain this and went on to claim a sum of Rs.84,99,951/- before the State Commission. This claim is sought to be repeated with an addition claim of interest, and interest upon interest, coupled with damages and cost. Learned counsel submits that there is no proof with regard to alleged CC/145/2O15 Page 14 of 48 It losses as claimed and consequently, even on merits, the claim is not indemnifiable for any amount whatsoever.
He submits that even if the Insurance Company has not issued any formal letter of repudiation, insurance company can still be called upon to complete the said exercise but the complaint cannot be allowed.
We have considered the submissions raised and we find that this is a peculiar case where the complainant has come up with a clear case that the fire was caused on account of the conduct of Mr. Naik and Mr.Rane, two of its employees, who were suspected of having caused the fire in order to destroy the evidence of theft. The same case was pleaded before the criminal Court by the prosecution and evidence was led to that effect. What is revealing is the judgment of the trial Court dated 20.12.2012. The same is extracted hereinunder: CC/145/2O15 Page 15 of 48
~..., :~ ..
4 1 1cf ic__ ReceiVCC. o:. 27/07/2010
a1 ~f { 1 i t( Registered on 27/07/2(10
r Decided nn 20/12/2012
Iwo . Duration 2Y-41.231)
_ P. IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SI:SS[ONS JUDGE,
/6/ 4 PALG[-[AR AT, PALG1{AR
(Presided over by A.1M.'faml li)
SESSION CASE NO.54/2010
EXH.NO.64
The State of Maharashtra
through Palghar Police Station. ....CompIainaiit.
V/s
Prash~int Bajir≥io Walk,
Age-38 years, Occupation-Servide,
R/o.Sa1?IV11, Boisar, Tul.I'alghar, 21 Vipull Vasant Rane, Age-28 years, Occupation-Service, :',} Mahesh Bajirao Naik, ... Accused.
Age-30 years, Occupation-Service, R/o.Saravli, Boisar, Tal.Palghar, 4; YZlrn~uharnad Sanaulia Khan, Age-38 years, Occupation -Business, I./o.Pilenj Nagar, Ta1.Palghar.
Offence punishable U/s.436, 407, 201 ,/w 34 and 109 r/w 407, 411 of the Shri.Patel, A.P.P. for the State.
Shri.Mhatre, Adv. for the. accused No.1 to 3. Shri.Parulekar, Adv. for the accused No.4.
2i CC/145/2O15 Page 16 of 48 (Judgment delivered on 20`" day of December,2012}
1. Accused are put on trial for the offence punishable under section 407, 411, 436, 201 r/w 34 and 109 of the L.P.C. of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution's case are as under
On 26/08/2008 one Sanjay Shyanmscindar Gadodia gave information to Palghar Police that he is having company under,the name and style as M/s.Spenla Inreru;i iir~ntaf Lid. Deval Associates at Plot No.1 of Alyali. One Dany i Li cni;i i:; his partner in the said company. In the said company there iti a godown and in the said godown they keep the socks which are manufactured in M/s.Spenta International Ltd. In the godown one Prashant Naik is supervisor and in the godow n two workers sleep at the night time. Ar day time there is a watchman but at night time there is no watchman. The godown is closed in the evening at 6-00 p.m. and after closing the godown keys of the godown are kept in the company.
r3. He has also informed That on 26/06/2008 ai 3.j0 a.m. when he was sleeping at home, he received phone call of Pradip Gadodia, Manager of the company that: the said godown is burning and therefore he immediately proceeded towards the godown and noticed that the godown ' was burning. The two workers who were steeping in the godown t~ CC/145/2O15 Page 17 of 48 _ .. .. S.C.No.54/2l~ i v .JUdglMli Lxh.4 carne to him and told him that at ;rlhotrr :)-0 am. sudd en:
the godown was engulfed in a fire. Th&≥y t.tennpted to court_ out of the room but the room was bolted and. therefor e the' opened the bolt by pushing the door and came our. They have also informed him that shutter of the godown was half open and therefore they made phone call to manager Chaudhary. Within some time fire brigade van came and doused the fire. lie has further informed that in the said fire he has suffered loss in the tune of Rs.Twent y to Rs.Twcnt' five lahhs. he has ritsrs informed that he does nor understand cause of the `ire.
~'• '1'hcrcalhter: can 00/09/2008 very said Sanjay Gadodia.
lodgcd the complaint with Palghar polic e stating that he is having a company under the name and style of Spenc,s International which manufactures socks in partn ership. The clay to day activities of the company are looked after by his partner Dany Hansoria and he himself. The finished good.
are kept in the godown at Dewal Asso
ciates Alyali for
ds '
yYo r' •:- t/~, .•y sa
gcdowr work of iable pasting,
packing was done with the help of about 18 workers and in order to supervise the work one supervisor by name {'rashaar Naik has been appointed and to assist him one Vipul Vasant Rane is appointed and they supervise the work.
LL/ 14~/LViJ rage to UI wo H& has further comolaincd rha- t.vo worke N, ul' the company i.e. Vijaykumar Tiwari and I larerarn Yadav u ,t t! to sleep in the godown. He has further complained tti~i< on 26/8/2008 the godown was eng ulfed in lire. in which lic• li;is sustained loss of Rs.25 1?kh s c:nd ..:C.': fc :.e :.aS i;
information in police.
He has further complained that in order to aseerniiii how much loss he has suffered in the :ire, he has taken stock of production and sale and noticed that on 25/08/2008 thete was . no entry of sending the finis hed goods our sidu thy.' godown and therefore he has made inquiries with Sakina Shaikh, Asha Tavre, : jar e ?, Swazi M-rlarre and watchman Mohan Sahani and learnt that on 25/8/2008 at about. 4-30 p.m. in one tempo 17 cart ons containing 8500 pairs of socks costing about Rs.3,50,00O /- were loaded by supervisor Prashant Naik for sending it to Boisar. However, there was no entry in the register of sending of the goods nor there was bill and therefore he became sure that said Prashant Bajirao Naik and his assistant Vipu l Vasant Rane have m:Sapt o ,-*,,:e" gv✓QS erurasred to them for their wrongful gain.
He has further complained that on the night of the fire he repeatedly made phone calls to the supervisor and his assistant but both had not come to company and therefor e his 5/ LL/ rage iy UI 45 S.C.No.54/2010 Judgment !:rh.64 doubt is increased. tie h;t:; furrher complained that in order to disappear the evidence and conceal the theft said supervisor and his assistant must have been set the godow n.
ablazed and in the process he has sustained loss of Rs.25 Laths.
8. Upon getting the complaint Palghai- police have registered crime at C.R.No.103/2008 under section 43~~, 407. ( 201 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. and after completing the investigation filed chargesheet against the accused perso ns in the Court of J.M.RC. l'alghar against the accused perso ns under <rlbovc see! inns and the .1.M.F.C. Palghar has comm itted ti;c case to this (Curt of Sessions being exclusively triable . by Court of Sessions, ~~. Upon a chargesheet, my predecessor Shri.S.D.Tehale tlrc, then Additional. Sessions Judge of this Court has fra. charge against the accused persons under section 407 of t.te I.P.C. against accused No.] and 2, under section 407 r/wR)", of I.P.C. against accused No.3 and under section 411 of the L.P.C. against accused No.3 and 4 so also he has Era nied charge against all the accused under section 436, 201 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. to which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Hence, present trial;
....tip'
t c / 145/tins rage LU OT 4t
r
O
10. Upon a chargesheet I have framed following points a .
st
for my determination and I have given my findings again each of them for the reasons mentioned below :-
POINTS FIN DINGS
1. Does the prosecution prove that the In the negative.
accused persons have pui tt e godown of M/s.Spenta International Ltd. afire with an intent to disappear the evidence of the crime committed by them ?
2. Does the prosecution further prove in the ne a+i ivc.
that while putting the godown on fire they have acted in furtherance of their common intention ?
3. Does the prosecution further prove that accused No.! and 2 who were godown keepers committed criminal breach of trust by misappropriating socks worth Rs.
3,S0,Q04/- kept in the godown in The accused No.
furtherance of their common 1 and 3 have
committed theft `
intention ?
of the goods in
furtherance of '• .,
1. Does the prosecution further prove their common
that the accused No.3 abetted the intention.
accused No.1 and 2 to commit the
breach of trust of their employer
M/s.Spenta international Ltd. by
.misappropriating the socks worth
.I3
Rs.3,50,000/- ?
7/
CC/145/2O15 Page 21 of 48
7 .. S.C.No.54/2010
Judgment Lxh.ti4
POINTS FINDINGS
S. Does the prosecution further prove In the negative.
that the accused No.3 and 4 have
received the stolen goods from
accused No.1 and 2 knowingly that
the goods i.e. socks are stolen ?
6. Does the prosecution prove that The accused
accused have committed any other No.3 & 3
offence ? : committed
offence U/s.381
& 380 of [PC
7. What order? As per final
order.
REASONS
11.. in ureter to prove their case the prosecution has
examined A!tii Chavan P.W.1 a driver, Sanjay Gadodia P.W.2 complainant, Swati Mhatre P.W.3 employee of M/s.Spenta International Ltd., Dayashankar Jaiswal P.W.4 a businessman dealing in socks waste material, 8havesh Jagtap P.W.5 a punch, Appa Yaliappa Barnne P.W.6 investigating officer, Rajesh Gava;i P.W.7 another invesrigating officer and closed their evidence.
As to Points No.1 and 2 :-
1.2. J am discussing points No.1 and 2 together for the sake of convenience.
13. According'to the prosecution all the accused persons in furtherance of their common intention have set We CC/145/2O15 Page 22 of 48 8 .. I godoviri of MV/s.Spenta Internatiot ►ai sitnatcd at A1y,►li wl Dire on the night of 2S/8/200 Will► ,►►► int<-n► to, (1',-::t,t))• ilh1:
evidence of misappropriation of the s eks kr!,i i►► if!( ; „f :a7 oy committing breach of trust of Sa►jaay Sf ►y:trit:;►l►►d►•t ( ;ititniia the complainant. However, there is no siz►gIc wt-:; who has seen any of the accused while setting the goduw►+ at ihe. 1t appears that Sanjay Gadodia P.W.2 while f{►d',i► t,-, the complaint Exh.33 has expressed his doubt agait:si a:d No.1 Prashant Naik and accused No.2 Vipui Ranc tlh;tt tfhey must have misappropriated the . socks worth hs.3,50,000/• ( from the godown day before the fire broke itt the godowti acid order :o conceal their illegal activity i.e. in order to (lest roy the evidence they must have set the godown at lire or mw;i have got it done with the hands of some other persons and precisely therefore the police have charged them foi~ti}t, offence punishable under section 436, 201 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. However, as observed by me, as there is no evidence to believe that they have set the said godown at fire, as the suspicion however strong cannot take place of proof, I am of the opinion rear in absence of evidence it can be safely said that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused Q ' persons in furtherance of their common intention that too in order to screen they themselves and in order to destroy the evidence set the godown on fire and therefore I answer the points No.1 and 2 in the negative.
9/ CC/145/2015 Page 23 of 48 S,(:. iu.54/2111 t) liicl,rttritt !;zh•( 1 A to Points No.3 and 4 :-
1 am discussing both these points togc•thc:r fi,r II''.:
sake of convenience.
According to the prosecution the accused No.1 and 2 who are supervisor and assistant of the supervisor employed by the complainant in the godowri have misappropriated the 17 cartons of the socks worth Rs.3,50,000/- and therapy committed breach of trust and thus they have committed offence under section 407 of the I.P.C. Moreover, according to the prosecution die accused No.3 Mahesh has abetted the said commission of offence by ." stigaC'.np ther to comma !'5e breach of trust OI' the complainant by misappropriating the socks entrusted !o them by the complainant.
So far as section 407 of the I.P.C. is concerned, it speaks about criminal breach of trust by carrier etc. In the said section even warehouse keeper is covered and therefore }police assuming than the accused No.1 and 2 are warehouse -~ Keeper Lave ai ied ' section. a07 of tb T .. !r ..
note that in fact the accused No.1 and 2 were in the S. employment of the complainant in M/s.Spenta International. The accused No.1 was supervisor and the accused No.2 was his assistant in the godown of M/s.Spenta International wherein finished goods i.e. socks were stored, it were being lehled and packed in the very said godown and for that 10/ CC/145/2O15 Page 24 of 48 to purposes about 17 to 18 employees were employed anti the accused No.1 and z were depLILwd iu iit civi"'O ill~`.rn.
I *tllis in fact the accused No.1 and 2 cannot lie said tc, 1,c w;aFchouse keeper but they can be said to be servants of the compkUnant either within the meaning of section 408 or :irt 1 of iluc I.F.C.
17. According to the 2r sec:. ''::y t.:: J;•.
broke in the godown, the accused No.1 and 2 have c'rru-usicd 17 cartons of the socks to one. Pick-up Van driver wiilroui making entries of the same in the registers maintained in tht:
godown and in the factory with an intent to misapprcprias.' ir. In order to prove the same the prosecution has examined said driver Anil Chavan P.W. 1 who has stated that in year 2008 lie was informed by his brother that one customer had been to hire his Pick-'..."p Va, ::c.;. M/s..Sre~ .zt C .-.;~a.y he went there and spoke to the manager Prashant Naik, the accused t' o.1 to whom he has identified as Prashant Naik. The accused No.1 Prashant Naik told him that he has ir, transport certain goods to Boisar and agreed to pay Rs.35O/- (. by way of fare and thereafter workers in the company loaded 17 cartons in his van and thereafter said accused No.1 told ~. .
him that one more person will meet him at Saravali Naka and he would instruct where the 4e!:ve:y of th gc ds :s to 5e given and therefore he proceded to Saravali Naka and at Saravali Naka he met person to whom he identified to be the accused No.3 and accused No.3 asked him to follow him and CC/145/2O15 Page 25 of 48 U S.C:No.54/2010 Judgment }..x.h.64 therefore he cl;owed his motorcycle towards Boisar (East) and the goods were unloaded in one gifia in a building and thereafter he returned back. It is pertinent to note that according to Sanjay Gadodia P.W.2 he had noticed subsecuently that or that day no goods were sent outside the godown as there was no such entry in the record of the company or the godown and therefore it is clear that the said 17 cartons have been dishonestly carried away by the accuse d ... wh e o ccused tio.,, without the consent of the complainant owner of the said goods.
18. In this connection evidence of Swati Mhatre P.W.3 is also r evant. According to her on 25/8/2008 in the evenin g one tempo came in the godown and on arrival of the said twnnpo Prashant Naik (the accused No.1) their supervisor asked them to load in the tempo 17 cartons and accordingly ( the girls who were working there loaded the cartons in the ti ti:'( •v•. , 1~ ^~ ten. r ie:
f at 5-SO p.m they !eft aS usual.
`Thus there is corroborative evidence of said Swati Mhatre to infer that the acc~.i;sed No.1 was the person who has dishonesLhy Moved the 1.7 cartons from the company outside towards 13oisar. At this stage it can be seen that the accused No.2 is not involved in any manner in moving of the goods from the godowr. towards Boisar.
CC/145/2O15 Page 26 of 48
So far as accused No.3 is concerned, according to Anil Chavan P.W.1 at S,iravrcli N,rkzr he met him and :kcd hint to follow hire and ultirinaly the carried the Pick-up van of the P.W.1. Anil to l3oisar and unloaded the cartons in one. gala shown by accused No.3 Mahcshand i hus it can be seen that the accused No.l. and 3, (Ire brutlicis were having l.vaa♦~aVa♦ uai\"aaaV a• aii UaA••V ••L1aaf u.aiVi' •.••\/ aiai:Ha.l ..a/. • • a a•~:
godown without consent of its owner .rru.I ii c;rc li'rc I dn► of the opinion that the accused No.1 and 3 can be said to haave committed theft of the socks in furtherance of their con► rnon intention and therefore I answer points accordingly, As to Point No.5 :-
According to the prosecution the accused No.3 has received the sto en goods an the e.y corgi it ed o< ≤ enncc under section 411 of the I.P.C. While discussing above, I hive already come to the conclusion that the accused No.3 is as thief and thus he cz:nnot be termed as receiver of the stolen properpty as one cannot be both at the same time and therefore I am of the opinion that the accused No.3 cannot be said to have received the stolen goods knowing it to be stolen. ,.
So far as accused No.4 is concerned, according to the prosecution one .iaiswai P.W.4 has stated that he is dealing in waste socks material_ and according to him the accused No.4 is his supplier of waste socks material.
CC/145/2O15 Page Z7 0t48
13 .. S.C.No:54/2010
, Yartnuhammed
According to him in the year 2008 January companies to him has sert scrap of socks mixed of various nta Company with which includes wastage of socks of M/s.Spe which are stolen invoice of the said waste sock. The goods waste material of from M/s.Spenta are finished socks. and not plier of waste socks socks. Yarrnuhammad who is the sup finished socks to said material cannot be said to have send the ence of said, Ja;swal Jaiswai P.W.4 and therefore from zhe*evid for the offence of the accused No.4 cannot be implicated . 411 of the I.P.C.
receiver of stolen property punishable U/s has also relied
22. Besides this evidence, the prosecution collectively and as upon memorandum panchanamu f:xh.b1 of accused No.1 the per the said panchanama at the instance s from the godown police have recovered three cartons of sock en~enr rtie of re accused No.4. As per the said s:
full of socks in the No.1 Prasharit Naik had ' kept 3 cartons panchanama Exh.€ ..
s 1 godown of accused No.4. Even if the not be said that the collectively is accepted as it is, it can goods. At the most it accused No.4 has received the stolen used the godown of can'be said that the accused No.1 has articles and therefore I accused No.4 for concealing the stolen tion has failed to prove • am of the opinion that the prosecu stolen goods knowing that accused No.3 and 4 have received point in the negative.
it to be stolen. Hence, I answer this
....14/
CC/145/2O15 Page 280148
14
As to Point No.6
In view of my labovc disni ;si >n I ;[III of th& 'pow m that all the accused are necessary iu 11C ;u•gtiiticd f1ci[ I he offence punishable under sectioi, 430, 1)l r/w :14 (,I 11hc~ I.P.C. The accused No.3 and 4 are neccs-:pry to ! ;~c•giiiutcd of the offence punishable tinder section 4 i 1 uI Il l.I1.C. Similarly I am of the opinion that the accused No. I ;,nncI :1rt necessary to be acquitted of ::e 3ff,.cc 7;s : !.' section 407 r/w 34 of the T.P.C. The accused No.3 is nec~.tss,iry to be acquitted of the offence punishable under scctiuti 407 r/w 109 of the LP.C. However, since the accused No.1 ;nnI :3 t are found to have committed offence of theft in a dwc:llif1g house, they are necessary to be convicted for the oJI tict! punishable under section 381 and 380 or' the E.P.C. HeiicLc, I answer the point accordingly.
As to No.7
Point
In view of my above discussion I am of the opinion that accused No.1 is necessary to be convicted for the offencc punishable under section 381 of the I.P.C. and accused No.3 is necessary to be convicted for the offence punishable uiidcr F section 380 of the I.P.C. for committing theft in a dwelling house as the accused No.1 is the employee of the comp?.ainant but accused No.3 is not in the employment of the coill r!lati&ai C. r7 •. i•a•a - y 3 a a -iv, c,: Lyle V1•.11'Vll li•GL .::V acccc:
persons are necessary to be acquitted of all the other offences. Hence, I propose to pass following order.
....15/
CC/145/2O15 Page 29 of 48
- 15 S.C.No.54/2c 10
Judgment Exh.64
ORD
i. The accused No.1 Prashant. u;ajirao Naik is convicted
for the offence punishable under section 381 of the I.P.C. and is sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees !'en Thousand only) and in default to suffer further Simple Imprisonment for one year.
The accused No.3 Mahesh Bajirao Naik is convicted for offence punishable under section 380 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for four years and 0 oav (•:,-,e (:F Rs 10.000/- (R_ ' ees Tan Thousand. o 'v) and. in d!e.fu ult. to sut t:r- further Simple Imprisonment for one year.
Sut-off the given of the period undergone in jail by the accused No.1 and 3 while computing their imprisonment.
e All t:he accused i.e. accused No.1 Prashant Bajirao Nails, accused No.2 Vipul Vasant Rane, accused No.3 Mahesh Baiirao Naik and accused No.4 Yarmuharrimad Sanaulla Khan the ~~.~a ,fie:: _ .?1' :$ .~.
.. offence sec tion i'3( ..
~a un der St.C_,
20 n w 3' of :h
Accused No.1 Prashant Bajirao Naik and accused No.2 Vipul Vasant R,ane are acquitted of the offence punishable under section 407 of the I.P.C.
Accused No.3 Mahesh Bajirao Naik is acquitted of the offence (punishable under section 407 r/w 109 of the i. P.C. ...16/ CC/145/2O15 Page 30 of 48 16 Accused No.3 Mah sh B is • ac ?Jak lNo.4 Yarmuhamrnaci Sanaulla Kharr are acquij! t uut' ilit. offence punishable under section 411 of the LP.C. The bail bonds of the accused No.2 and 4 s!.rnd cancelled.
The accused ;Vo.1 and 3 are airected to surrend(•r their bail bonds.
The muddemal property n~irnely socks Arr:icic' C.7eCt:~,~~J .~i~".. i~:1u~u\:LI ~V AI LVi.. cc., . allc' ♦..L Jl':.. Vt. v.
appeal is over.
Ii. The muddemal property namely hacksaw blade being worthless be destroyed after the period of appeal is over.
Palghar (A. .Tambol ) Date:•20/12/2022. Additional Sessions Judge, ?ag har.
~,t5 •'
~fj fi 11, ' 1
omaar. .. t:e;urt. F'Qtghz~r
CC/145/2O15 Page 31 of 48
A perusal of the said highlighted portion of the judgment would demonstrate that the accused have been clearly let off of the charges under section 436 IPC (arson), Section 201 ( removal of evidence) read with Section 34 and they stand clearly acquitted on that count. Thus, the case set up by the complainant of the fire having been •caused deliberately and maliciously by the accused in order to erase the evidence of theft stood negatived by the trial court. We have not been able to find any other evidence to test the probabilities once again nor any such material has been placed on behalf of the complainant to presume that the fire had occurred on account of the deliberate attempt of the accused named in the FIR.
The arguments of Mr. Gupta that such a material ought to have been brought on record before the State Commission as the judgment had already been delivered on 20.12.2012 seems to be a contention worth acceptance. The complainant was in constant touch with the police for a prompt filling of the chargesheet and then its trial where the Complainant Sanjay Gadodia appeared as PW-2 and has taken a categorical stand supporting the case of the prosecution that has been disbelieved by the trial court. This fact was a relevant and material fact relating to the cause of fire as pleaded by the complainant himself. It seems to us that complainant for reasons best known did not file a copy of this order / judgment before the State Commission when the matter was pending before it and more particularly did not even mention about CC/145/2015 Page 32 of 48 it in the present complaint which was admittedly filed in 2015. In our opinion, the attempt of the complainant in withholding this information has an element of suppression in it. On the other hand, it is also relevant to point out that this pendency of the criminal case, in paragraph 10 of the complaint, it has been stated as follows:
"10. The Complainant states that due to the circumstances prevailing prior to 26.Aug.2008 they had suspected that their 2 Discontented Employees may be involved in Theft of their Stocks and to destroy evidence of Theft that could have been ascertained by taking Inventory of the Stock, the said Employees may have set Fire to their Godown Premises, and therefore they had filed FI.R. on 06. Sept.2008 being F.I.R. No. 103 expressing their doubt and suspicion that their Employees, Mr. Prashant Naik and Mr. Vipul Vasant Rane may have set Fire to destroy evidence of Theft by them. The Complainant as such requested the Opposite Party not to insist for the Fire Report and to process their Claim for settlement by their letter dated 15.Oct.2008. The Complainant states that inspite of the said request, the Opposite Party by their letter dated 12.Jan.2009 insisted upon the Complainant to provide them with Original FI.R. and Fire Brigade Report.
The Complainant, therefore, submitted the Original FI.R. Report to the Opposite Party under cover of their letter dated 15.Jan.2009 informing them that they had made an Application for the Fire Report, copy of which Application was also annexed to the said letter. Hereto annexed and marked Exhibit "J" is copy of the said letter dated
15.Jan.2009 from the Complainant to the Opposite Party."
30. There is no averment in the entire complaint about the partial conviction of the accused. for theft or their acquittal in respect of arson in the entire complaint. Counsel for the complainant could not give any satisfactory explanation except contending that it was the duty of the CC/145/2O15 Page 33 of48 insurance company to have gathered the result of the criminal case in order to settle the claim, which it did not do. Be that as it may, the surveyor had submitted his report on 06.01.2009 when the said judgment was not even in existence. There was no occasion for the surveyor to have gathered such information and if the same had any bearing as contended by the complainant, it was they who ought to have brought it to the notice of either the State Commission or this Commission.
31. There is also an interesting fact behind this that it appears that the fact of judgment of the trial court quoted above seems to have been in the knowledge of the complainant when the matter was pending before the State Commission. For this it would be appropriate to refer to the copy of the written arguments that were filed before the State Commission and have been brought on record of the complaint at page
120. The written arguments narrates that the complainant had filed the complaint against 2 of its employees but it recites that 'therefore, merely because the complainant had expressed its doubt as to the involvement of its 2 employees, the same cannot be construe to mean any involvement of the complainants'. For this reliance has also been placed on the Forensic Examination Report to contend that there was no trace of kerosene or petrol so as to construe a possibility of deliberate fire as was being suspected by the insurance company. Learned counsel for the complainant .may be correct to the extent that CC/145/2O15 Page 34 of 48 there was no material found during investigation to construe the involvement of the complainant in any way but the issue is that once the complainant's stand that the fire had been caused by its own employees had been negatived, then the complainant could have brought any other material or any circumstantial aspects to plead that in all probability the fire was accidental.
In our opinion, the acquittal of the accused is on account of the absence any eye witness to the arson but the fact remains that the complainant without fail and with definite conviction has pleaded the cause of fire as being intentional and malicious by its own employees even if it is not with the connivance of the complainant. , In the given circumstances, we find conduct of the complainant in not bringing on record the judgment of the trial court promptly or pleaded in the complaint as a cause of grave concern. The complainant has not given any explanation as to why this material fact was withheld and surfaced only in the year 2025 after prodding from this Commission.
There is no indication about this judgment having been brought to the notice of the Insurance Company as well.
The documents which are on record also need to be referred to. The first document is the Surveyor Report dated 06.01.2009. Clause 3 captioned as Report from Authorities alongwith sub paragraphs is extracted hereinunder:
CC/145/2O15 Page 35 of 48
Li UEI'O TS FltOM AUTHORITIES:
I t 03.01 Insured have submitted copies of police panchnnma and Flit. Copies of the same arc cnslosed and marked as ANNEX! IRE. I of this report. They have yet not submitted fire brigade report.
03.02 Scrutiny of the Flit revealed that the police officials have registered crime uls.436, 407, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The provisions of these sections arc as under:
S ection 34 When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Section 201 Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.
Section 407 Whoever, being entrusted with property as a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse keeper, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of such property, shall be punished with imprisonment .
Section 436 Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of 2roperty, shall be punished with iinprisonment for life.
25th 03.03 In the FIR, Insured have mentioned that on August 2008, at about 4.30 p.m., Mr. Prashant Naik SupervisQz. removed 8,500 pairs of socks valued at Rs.3.50,000r• in 17 cartons. However,jto.entry ofdespatch was found in bill register. They have allea-d ,tint Mr.Prashant Naik in connivance with Mr. Vipul Rane, stole the goods entrusted to him as "'ZRSCSr7ra" n art o them for his own financial benefit.CC/145/2O15 Page 36 of 48
Rcnort N.080/2008-09 I
r. PIIndkr.c Co
2008 Insured
cloth of1119111,1A.'
3,04 When the fire took place in the night of 26th August cted that m order to destroy
the
godosvn II
ut they did not turnp. re ore, nsure s
iJnik and Mr. Vipul Rnne'eithcr
cNI cnca of the fact that they had stolen the goods, Mr. themselves or through somebody else, set the godown on firl been recorded as Rs.25 lacs. We 03 05 Finally, in the FIR, the amount of loss due to fire has informed us that police had therefore enquired with insured about the discrepancy. Instired subsequently. In this regard, recorded the amount wrongly. The mistake was rcctificd of the company, ~iubmnicd ' co Insur py of statement of Mr. Sanjay Gadodoa, Director 1,00,00,0p0%, dt2 t ,Novcmbcr 200S inwhich, the amount of loss has been reported as Rs.
t f the same is enclosed and marked ns ANt`TX1WT 11 of this report. Then comes clause 4 which is equally relevant and is extracted hereinunder:
04.00 CAUSE OF LOSS 04.01 As stated in the preliminary survey report and as evident from the FIR, Insured have alleged that their supervisor Mr. Prashant Naik, in connivance with Mr. Vipul Rane had set the godown on fire.
04.02 As the police investigation is not over, exact cause of fire is not known.
We then have the Fire Report of the date of incident dated 26.08.2008 that was tendered on 13.07.2009. The same records that the supposed cause of fire is unknown and the criminal case was under
investigation.
Thus a perusal of these documents clearly establishes that the fire broke out and the FIR lodged on 06.09.2008 categorically names the accused Mr. Naik and Mr. Rane, who were the employees of the CC/145/2015 Page 37 of 48 complainant with an allegation that they are suspected of having set the godown on fire. The author of the FIR is the complainant and the accused employees were chargesheeted on the said basis. The complainant did not take any other stand and since the police investigation was still on, therefore the surveyor and the Fire Surveyor Repot, both indicated that the exact cause of fire is not known. The Surveyor assessed the loss and calculated the valuation and after deducting the salvage as well as excess, indicated in clause 9 that the loss had occurred due to fire, but the Insurance Company in view of the facts stated in clause 4 quoted above, may take a suitable decision in the matter. The surveyor also indicated that no breach of any warranty had been observed and the loss assessed was to the tune of Rs.84,99,951/-.
951/-.
40. The Insurance Company thereafter called upon the complainant to submit the Fire Report and also photographs as well as copies of the FIR and the police report. The reminder was sent for settling the claim on 25.09.2009 and insurance company responded on 08.10.2009 as follows:CC/145/2015 Page 38 of 48
CC). Lru I 'NI Fli) INDIA iNSIlItANC is t,r..
r.n -...111C iYu 9, <'rl.••r.R,-0I(fl .B I Ms. r. r1. Mw, 4.1 .4t Tlr -I 7 Y. fli'i IURL -.Yl1 lit Y. 17r1IW'
7.• M a S^r.•.., ;..iul.ntt,.... a L t.9 f .. :34 o 1,~, UN t-.
''T 4
L':rs...
1,000UUUH2
Ito : C7aim unicr your policy No. OZO9UUI I i OS,'l Jut to lire at P11glyr no Z(u0Ri0H.
Our Claim No.0209001 I0H119000011fD3.
25 1•- ;31i .,...clnccha:i t: as II:, „te We me m re:esr' oI 7..7r 7 ttct d, t:J n,ztter nsltl N:r S I' Mr. D.V. Ga,a:- Division it M;ii.c; dt.,.o'cd Jr.' ha:, ath•, d 1:, It o'ct as t;a^IU 'G"-.tr ul 91d Regional Mana21'. %iRU-I today ix cc from you the c!:,rlfcation.stuius of the Court us to utlenn nu, Ilcgle....t UC'a_ Kindly solid u> ).-.- r reply nnntcdiatcly to cn.blc Thanking yu.
Yours faithfully, OC.N. AIIUJ.1) ASST. MANAGER Mitt) I for inform,,non cc , Mr. S.P. Kale, Regional Matwgcr, f~'illi'a1f)C~a~ ~~Ys rZ:^ip CC/145/2O15 Page 39 of 48 Perusal of the same that indicates that the insurance company was expecting an outcome of the court case. This was responded to by the complainant on 14.10.2009 by stating that they had not been intimated by the police or by the court about any further progress in the case. The complainant has brought on record its letter dated 07.06.2010 addressed to the Senior Police Inspector, requesting him to. expedite the filing of the chargesheet.
The complainant in his letter dated 10.06.2010 reflected certain averments about the suspicion raised on the staff for having committed theft and causing fire. The letter has a bearing on the stand of the complainant, which is extracted hereinunder CC/145/2015 Page 40 of48 ;, / F ~
- 1, ndmn• oft. t , , {I6 A.l1~ 1v~rtPaJ4ra "t C~ sienta SPENTA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED ¢~. q7 ,9i 71VT COO €^o+ 1pe^)^ ^5-^ Dole :10 June. 2010 United India Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office Stadium house Veer Mailman Road Churchgntc, Mumbai DearSir, K. Accrrte_t.c R•1a„ ; Mt' Sub : Claim under Policy No. 020900/I ,h18/I 1100000032 Fire at Palghar on 26.08.2008 Insured M/s. Spenta International Ltd.
With reference to your letter dated 3°i October, 2009 and our personal visit to your Ofice on 2' June, 2010. from the discussion with your Mrs. Alamalu and Mr. Kale, we could gather that you desire to have evidence to establish involvement of Mr. Naik and Mr. Vipul Rene, our ex-staff who are suspected to have been involved in setting our Godown on lire on 26`s August, 2008 and in this respect we refer you to the Final Survey Report of tv1/s. A. P. Phidke & Co. dated 6'' January, 2010, the original of which is available on your file and would like to draw your attention to Pam 03.04 on Page No.3 of die said Survey Repon reading "Mr. Naik and Mr. Vipul Kane either they themselves or through somebody else has set the Godown on fire". We had reason to suspect them as apparently cause of the Fire is not known though there is strong possibility of these two gentlemen having delilxmtely set fire to destroy evidence of the fact that they had stolen the goods which is confirmed in die Police Report dated 27°' February, 2009 No. 8$2 of 2009 issued by Pidghar Police Station, A.P.I. Mr. It, G. Gmvli, who was investigating,the subject matter.
From said Report of the A.P.I. Mr. R. G. Gawli, copy of which is enclosed herewith, it is daily evident that the said accused Mr. I'mshnnt Naik and Mr. Vipul Vnsant Rape PF ,vc epnfaxled to Iuving committed the crime) offence. ~ tltlY tWV' * yy' ISMryS hat 0fMra~MrM 9,14 1$ n e•:~. '.yv .. . t i
2. t.d6f $fl3?,?$Xf, 7YN8ro 9 "t7i :_'c131.•• 'ii ,e,• r.,.~. .
r.
ndnin oft
-!i spenta :.
SPENTA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
f4'•..e , s net sh: enuzl c+u-t of Fin n nit 4r:~~wn the Fire (lnl> dr f71Trcc rn
F.ry Reiv n \u 1u2 of 20OR while ron(irmmn Major lire in os•r (&d-, m h-ivc
wnc"oded urn ctur rl I ire it "Unknown" ant th- mnner rt un! •r mvr•ltrsrmn unfit Cat N 101nf2'Y;R As we had reason to tu.=7•eet tmrlvement +i a.ur ec ,.,all, th.w•th luar( :1?e or e::a„ we svcre forced in cnrnpa.n and expm:s t'jr %'r Tr run to the Police Au'h-nuE s rtr"i (1n of our Crmp!mnt, (th-rurh the Fin: tiny h ive crt Irrn =.ca by th^ ct- '.d1, ii cuv.K th-u crime of theft). the Pnhcc Authannca could rcenver matenal. As rrck. y,.0 will appreciate that then: %as justification in our surpccnng Our ea-Mtat) of slit' (re. though it may be proved or nut.
You are aware thin under the Standard fire and Special 1`crils In,urance under the Pu ..y, the wtrnal damage is covered due to Fire that may be on any account etccpt destrrrclion ordamage ean.rd to the property in%un:d by:
i) Its awn(ermentanon. natural heating or spontaneous cnmhuatis,,
ii) Its undergoing any heating or drying rroees Duming of property insured by osier of any Pubic Au+nnty K'bik taunt of the Frc is not known 11wuf)i su ~a.ted to t: aye bet'. n by et• ry that th Fire is talpbyea, you wiD appreciate that t LAO- rd by iFtu ^ ta. cost- ~: n.v h /~
(b) of by the reason which sic under General ExchR:.'n and t_re, 1rrcl.. :l r r -t cte ,for yp to Wfl)sboid Sculctnent òf the darn merely hce . -x )un ;ue un+": I+ a-ccrtt t dotpa~br0ie same of Frc.
k (S QM p uccdesN for Underwrllcn to be held liable ti kr, a cx t . a r r p iI~ is1~ illi'~7F11 bo twfirtnod from yrxrr own rucard of ttse tire 14 i by r.• [fy," Yap bra as Uaderwriien titled llmusamta of F uc hr too" I S./d o*..A/tsY. 1l u if Nt 60 i 4'.-1 f.•n '• hi tIo1IuuanISNiS' I, V.fl
44. CC/145/2O15 Page 42 of 48 0 Spenta SPENTA INTERNATIONAL LIMITED _ tt.•r ; t:.. ' rto '-i 1 id' '(• 111 ., IT r. -- t .. !k{.. 't••i riot--t o(11..(... ,1,. .flan:
- .' Ctm'i~ ~^r l"~ Ir• •..m! 1 le_-1. .•1 11. .r- ' . I r .'1 t. , ll'- f R Ir' .._r.:y. i' er_ M} I t ta' rn,hth'e cacct of f ue U-ily to _ --rtn?n ttit the f.re h r. ' m.1=J t.
tom: rr -.,s w4- .h erc m _rltl-s l _t t as .:...' At -n n r»r_ or amler (,vrrcril f cc:J 1f .t ca.._d be Irrtnretecl that the Ere hu ml ocavritd di..,, In thee e.aeptrrra (ii Q fir r Ceaerrl Exc'uatxt, then you. is l'ndcn.ritcr I.nc t.t !:rte the cLnn wttht..:t h a•hrr' back the Settlement of the Claim on t1._ gr...:Rd th t cud c` ; of f re to rct kw w r 11RE being ens of the Rrsl, cnvend •obdcr the at.»e POi cy Kc therefore, reque.t you to kindly rccons,Acr the muter .J1.1 pr. r our C wrn I+r unmeduae scitlemcnt wm.tdcnng that 26 Auguq, 2010 a the Ia.t d."r- lit u t•i (ii'i' Complaint in the Consumer Forum on ueount of Deficiency of Service in y+ i rat IP settling the Claim in compliance with the IRDA (Pro'ccnon of Policy Iluld,r': (ntrt ,.0 in Regulation. 2002. Regulation No.9, provision of which have been violated by following the Claim Procedure for eertlement of the Clam to p nt- t tt We we sure th4 on tmtp( of this letter, you s"I 1St neccary action rccen•.dared t, Claim and let us have your confirmation that the C'1.run a being hive to be fired cr avoid our filing requivte Complaint in the Consumer Fonrm wht,h bcfaa 266 August, 2010.
Document. Inform ti r>n v. b ch -re In Hawens. for settling the Claim. if you require any the taste to y.0 ptrpontaession, we shall be too happy to furnish Yogi WSfufly.
~. !1ATTUVAL 1.111.
I. r Y1.f.fn.. .: .1. .
S
Perusal of it indicates a wavering stand taken in respect of the involvement of the staff but it justifies the complainant's suspicion on its own staff.
We find that complainant was also awaiting the outcome of the criminal case as they were not sure themselves as to whether the said charge of arson would be proved or not but they stood by their stand of suspecting the cause of fire on account of it being instigated by their employees in order to destroy the evidence of theft.
As noted above, the judgment of the trial court has clearly opined that in the absence of any witness, the prosecution could not prove the charge against the accused of arson or removal of evidence. The contention, therefore, of the Insurance Company on a combined reading of all this material demonstrates that the Complainant has failed to establish the cause of fire as alleged by them or even otherwise that it was accidental, is correct.
But there is one more interesting aspect which has not been dwelt over even by the Surveyor or by the Insurance Company. Same is the impact of the exclusions contained in clause V of the policy which is extracted hereinunder Riot, Strike and Malicious Damage: Loss of or visible physical damage or destruction by external violent means directly caused to the property Insured but excluding those caused by CC/145/2015 Page 44 of 48 Total or partial cessation of work or the retardation or interruption or cessation of any process or operations or omissions of any kind.
Permanent or temporary dispossession resulting from confiscation, commandeering, requisition or destruction by order of the Government or any lawfully constituted Authority Permanent or temporary dispossession of any building or plant or unit or machinery resulting from the unlawful occupation by any person of such building or plant or unit or machinery or prevention of access to the same.
Burglary, housebreaking, theft, larceny or any such attempt or any omission of any kind of any person (whether or not such act is committed in the course of a disturbance of public peace) in any malicious act.
If the Company alleges that the loss / damage is not caused by any malicious act, the burden of proving the contrary shall be upon the Insured.
A malicious damage is protected and the risk is covered for indemnification under this clause, subject to the exclusions contained therein.
One of the exclusion is burglary, house breaking, theft, larceny or any such attempt or any omission of any kind of any person whether or not in the course of disturbance of public peace in any malicious act.
In the instant case, even though the insurance company had suspected the complainant but no such proof has been brought forward by the insurance company to establish any allegation against the complainant.
However, in the present case, it is the complainant who has alleged a malicious act against the accused who are his own employees of having attempted to erase the evidence. The accused were charged CC/145/2015 Page 45 of48 both for arson and also for having committed theft of removing the evidence. This part of malice coupled with a criminal attempt was clearly alleged, none else by the complainant themselves but they failed to prove it. But we will say nothing further as this aspect has neither been indicated by the surveyor nor has it been commented on by the insurance company.
The question, therefore is can the indemnification be permitted unless it is established that fire was accidental or can be assumed to be accidental.
The law on this issue is settled but each case depends upon its own peculiar facts and, therefore, requires an assessment by the insurance company itself.
We, however, agree with the learned counsel for the complainant that the insurance company was not justified in keeping the claim pending and not settling it or repudiating it. Provisions of Section 64 UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 obligate the insurance company to settle the claim within the time span as provided under the 2002 Regulations.
In the instant case, the surveyor report had been admittedly tendered on 06.01.2009 yet claim was not finalized. Arguments of Mr. Gupta that since complaint had been filed in 2010, therefore, the pendency of the complaint before the State Commission and then before this Commission seems to have led the insurance company to believe that the decision can be awaited. We do not agree with this CC/145/2015 Page 46 of 48 contention at all inasmuch as, filing of the complaints or their pendencies does not preclude the insurance company from discharging its duties under the Act to finalize and settle the claim once the insurance surveyor has tendered his report.
However, in the present case, what we find that there is a lapse of time and there is serious contest about the cause of fire as also the quantum as claimed by the complainant. This being within the realm of the decision making power of the insurance company, which has admittedly not been exercised, calls for an appropriate direction.
We, therefore hold that Insurance Company was deficient by not taking a final decision on the settlement of the claim of the complainant but at the same time the complainant also had withheld the judgment of the trial court which had been tendered way back in 2012 itself and in our opinion was relevant in order to decide the controversy with regard to the cause of fire and its impact in terms of the policy coverage In the aforesaid background, we find it expedient and just to dispose off this Complaint with a direction to the Insurance Company to proceed to finally pass orders regarding the settlement or otherwise of (I the claim of the complainant by a reasoned and speaking order preferably not later than 4 months from today and intimate the complainant about the outcome of the decision.CC/145/2O15 Page 47 of 48
J
60. The Consumer Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Sd/-
..............................................
(A.P.SARI,J.) PRESIDENT Sd/-
..................................................
(BHARATKUMAR PANDYA) MEMBER Am/CAV/ CC/145/2015 Page 48 of 48