State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs M/S Nihal Petro World on 5 December, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.61 of 2010
Date of institution : 15.01.2010
Date of decision : 05.12.2013
United India Insurance Company Ltd., 136, Feroze Gandhi Market,
Ludhiana.
.......Appellant- Opposite Party
Versus
M/s Nihal's Petro World (Indian Oil Dealer), MBM Farm, Near Five
Star Insta Hotel, P.O. Sultanwind, G.T. Road, Amritsar through S.
Ranjit Singh Pannu, Partner.
......Respondent-Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
3.12.2009 of the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Vinod Gupta, Advocate. For the respondent : Shri Vikas Gupta, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellant/opposite party has preferred this appeal against the order dated 3.12.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the opposite party was directed to pay the sum of Rs.46,350/- as assessed by the surveyor, vide his report Ex.R-4; Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as litigation expenses.First Appeal No.61 of 2010. 2
2. As per the averments, made in the complaint, the complainant is a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of sale of petrol, diesel and lubricants. He approached opposite party No.2 for obtaining policy against theft of any of the items of furniture, fixtures and articles lying inside the premises of the petrol pump, including laptop, T.V., printer, scanners etc. When the complainant shared his idea and concern regarding thefts taking place in the petrol pump, opposite party No.2 suggested for the policy called 'Burglary and House Breaking Policy' by saying that it would cater to his needs and would cover the theft as such by house breaking. Accordingly he purchased that policy for a total sum of Rs.2,78,500/- and paid Rs.729/- as premium. The same was valid from 15.4.2009 to 14.4.2010. He had purchased one laptop for Rs.51,500/-, which was amongst the articles lying in the petrol pump. On 19.5.2009 the same was stolen by some unknown person at 1.30 P.M. All his efforts to catch thief/to locate the laptop failed. Thereafter, FIR No.61 dated 22.5.2009 was got registered under Section 380 IPC in Police Station Sultanwind by him. He lodged a claim with opposite party No.2 after complying with all the formalities and submitted all the necessary documents. His claim was repudiated, vide letter dated 5.6.2009 on the ground that there was no forcible entry into the insured premises and risk was not covered under the purview of the 'burglary policy'. A narrow definition was given by the opposite parties to the theft, which was by way of house breaking or forcibly entering. This narrowing down the legal, acceptable and general definition of theft to suit their convenience in order to reject his First Appeal No.61 of 2010. 3 legitimate claim amounts to deficiency in service for which he is entitled to Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by him, besides the insured sum of Rs.51,500.00; along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. He prayed for the issuance of directions accordingly to the opposite parties.
3. The opposite parties filed joint written reply admitting therein that the complainant was issued policy for burglary and house breaking. While denying the other averments made in the complaint, it was pleaded that the laptop in question was not the property of the complainant-firm as the same was purchased by Ranjit Singh for his personal use and the complainant-firm had no insurable interest therein. The FIR was got registered by the complainant in connivance with the police officials for getting the claim from them. After the information was received about the theft, they appointed a surveyor to assess the loss, who after investigation, submitted his advice that the said loss was not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy as there was no forcible entry into the office of the complainant. Moreover, he assessed the loss only to the tune of Rs.46,350/-. The claim of the complainant was rightly repudiated and he has got no cause of action to file this complaint. The policy was issued for burglary and house breaking and at that time it was explained that claim was assessable under the policy only where the loss was caused due to the forcible entry into the premises. The complainant himself had stated that it was not a forcible entry into his office. Otherwise also, all his employees were present when the First Appeal No.61 of 2010. 4 alleged theft took place. Therefore, they are not liable to pay any such insurance claim or compensation.
4. Both the sides produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that it was a "burglary and house breaking" policy obtained by the complainant and that fact stands proved from the documents proved on the record, including the insurance policy Ex.R-5 and burglary claim form Ex.R-7. It is very much clear from the contents of the complaint itself and the FIR, which was got lodged by the complainant, that the laptop was stolen during daytime without any house breaking or "opening of locks. This theft does not fall under "burglary" or "house breaking" and, as such, no claim was maintainable under the insurance policy. From the evidence produced by the complainant, it stands proved that this laptop was not the property of the complainant, as it was purchased by Ranjit Singh in his own name. Therefore, it was not covered by the insurance policy so obtained by the complainant. The District Forum committed an illegality while ignoring all this evidence. The order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that after taking into consideration the evidence First Appeal No.61 of 2010. 5 produced before it and the judgments on the point, it was correctly concluded by the District Forum that the theft of the laptop was covered under the insurance policy. No doubt, bill of the laptop was in the name of Ranjit Singh but therein he has shown to be the partner of the complainant-firm and, as such, it was the property of the firm and was covered under the policy. No illegality was committed by the District Forum while allowing the complaint on the basis of the cogent and convincing evidence produced by the complainant.
8. The averments made in the complaint were substantiated by Ranjit Singh Pannu by means of his affidavit Ex.C-12, in which he deposed about each and every fact as stated in the complaint. The cover note, on the basis of which the insurance policy Ex.R-6 was issued, was proved on record by the complainant as Ex.C-3 and by the opposite parties as Ex.R-5. A perusal thereof shows that besides the petroleum products by way of stock in the premises of the petrol pump, the articles lying in the administrative office were also insured, as per the list enclosed therewith. The list was proved on the record by the complainant himself as Ex.C-4. The complainant also proved on record the Retail Invoice Ex.C-2, vide which the laptop was purchased from My Infotech on 27.2.2009. This laptop had already been purchased before the insurance policy was obtained. The laptop is mentioned in the list Ex.C-4 and it is the same laptop HP 1240 TX, which was purchased, vide Retail Invoice Ex.C-2 in the name of Ranjit Singh Pannu as care of the First Appeal No.61 of 2010. 6 complainant-firm. Therefore, this laptop was covered under the insurance policy.
9. It is pertinent to note that the policy so obtained by the complainant was a 'Burglary and House Breaking Policy'. It is very much clear from the contents of the complaint and the FIR Ex.C-5 that the laptop was lying in the office when the same was stolen by some unidentified persons. Can it be said to be a case of burglary or house breaking?
10. It was clear from the insurance policy itself that it was only the loss of any article due to burglary or house breaking, which was covered under the same. It is not the case of the complainant, as pleaded in the complaint, that there was such burglary or house breaking in which the laptop was stolen. According to him, it was a simple case of theft. House breaking covers a theft, which involves forcible entry/or exit from the premises. The burglary means a house-breaking by night, with an intent to commit a felony therein, whether such felony is actually committed or not.
11. Therefore, it cannot be said that the theft of this laptop was covered under the insurance policy. The District Forum committed illegality while allowing the complaint and the same is liable to be set aside.
12. Accordingly this appeal is accepted, the order passed by the District Forum is set aside and the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.
13. The sum of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be First Appeal No.61 of 2010. 7 remitted by the registry to the appellant/opposite party by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days.
14. The arguments in this case were heard on 22.11.2013 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) December 05 , 2013 MEMBER Bansal