State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Balbir Singh vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd on 11 September, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 11-09-2007 Complaint Case No. C-298/98 Balbir Singh Complainant G-I/62, Sector 15, Through Rohini, Mr. Mohendra Singh, Delhi-110085. Advocate. Versus 1. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Opposite Party No.1 10203 Padam Singh Road, Through Karol Bagh, Mr. S. Bagga, New Delhi. Advocate. 2. M/s The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd., Opposite Party No.2 Gurudwara Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of OP Insurance Company in repudiating the claim of the complainant to the tune of Rs. 5,28,000/- without any justification and has through this complaint sought indemnification of Rs. 5,28,000/- towards loss of raw material as well as damages towards mental agony amounting to Rs. 50,000/- with interest @ 24%..
2. Case of the complainant, in brief, is that he is the sole prop. of M/s Electro Metal Industries, Delhi and is engaged in the business of manufacturing solder wires, solder sticks and liquid flux under the brand name of Guru. He has obtained a fire policy as well as miscellaneous theft insurance policy from the OP No.1. The complainant paid the premium of Rs. 1476/- for covering the said risks of raw material lying stored in the premises. The insurance cover was obtained to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/-.
3. that on 18.06.1997, 11 sillies of tin were missing. On 19.06.1997 when the factory was again opened for days work, 22 sillies of tin were found missing. The complainant then lodged the complaint with police. On 20.06.1997, when the nephew of the complainant again opened the factory for days work, 22 sillies of tin were further found stolen. A total of 55 sillies were got stolen. It was revealed that culprits after breaking open the roof sheet from the top had entered the premises and stolen the sillies of tin.
4. The OP Insurance Company appointed M/s Select Surveyors to assess and investigate the loss. The said surveyor instead of submitting its report to the underwriter sent a letter dated 27.06.1997 stating therein that reported loss appears to be a case of pilferage and that he is recommending for treating the claim as NO CLAIM.
5. That the surveyor had given his conclusion without thoroughly conducting the investigation. The OP No.1 sent a letter dated 13.08.1997 informing the complainant that claim has been repudiated by the competent authority due to lack of timely action to safeguard the property. The OP No.1 by repudiating the claim has not only caused the deficiency of services but also caused mental tension and torture. OP No.1 is not only liable to pay the value of the stock, i.e., 55 sillies amounting to Rs. 5,28,000/- as also Rs. 50,000/- towards mental tension and torture suffered during the said period. The OP No.1 company is also liable to pay interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of claim till realization. OP denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part and stated the claim of the complainant was repudiated after proper investigation and processing.
6. According to the OP it had repudiated the claim on the ground that Shortage Missing of stock as reported was not covered under Burglary and House Breaking Insurance Policy and the claim was repudiated by the competent Authority due to lack of timely action to safeguard the property as warranted under general conditions. Further that on the request of the complainant vide his letter dated 15.09.97 another surveyor M/s Select Surveyors were appointed. The OP, however, appointed another surveyor, Mr. J.K. Sharma who investigated into the matter and confirmed the assessment made by M/s Select Surveyors vide his report dated 6.9.98. As per this report the roof top is about 20 high and the weight of one ingot is about 30 Kg., so it was quite impossible for a man to carry the ingot at a height of 20 feet; no visible force was applied and no lock was found broken; the ingots were found missing regularly for three days; the complainant did not take care to stop further theft. OP No.1 has repudiated the claim after proper investigation and processing of the claim. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.
7. As is apparent from the stand taken by the OP the claim of the complainant was repudiated only on the premise of impossibility for a man to carry the ingot at a height of 20 ft. and further that it was not case of burglary or house breaking as no visible force was applied and no lock was found broken.
8. In our view, Investigator or surveyor cannot indulge in surmises and conjunctures. They have no powers in investigating the criminal offences. It is the Police who have been given powers to investigate into the offences of criminal nature and not by any other authority.
9. Even on merits this is a case of burglary. Dictionary meaning of burglary is the crime of breaking by night into a house with a felonious intent. Unauthorized entry amounts to forcible entry into the house for robbery or steeling or for theft by a thief. We have taken a view that whenever any person enters into premises where he is not authorized to enter into, he commits an offence and such an entry is forcible entry. The dictionary meaning of force is to restrain, to compel, to extort, to violate, propel, to break open by force. Thus from any angle or aspect we may examine this case we find that the claim of the complainant was wrongfully repudiated. The surveyor even did not go into the question of assessing the loss suffered by the complainant and recommended rejection of the claim merely on the premise that it was not a case of burglary because no force was applied to unlock or break open nor was there possibility of a man being able to carry 30 kg at the height of 20 feet.
10. Circumstance of removal of sillies from the locked godown involves house-breaking. It is not necessary that locks should be broken.
Entry into the locked premises through any means for the purpose of committing theft amounts to house-breaking.
11. Now a days everything is possible. What is relevant is whether the theft has taken place or not. Whether the sillies which were insured with the respondent were found missing or not or were taken away or not.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts we have no reason to disbelieve the claim of the complainant which has been fortified and supported by the documents etc. and therefore we allow the complaint in the following terms:-
(i) OP shall indemnify the loss by making the payment of Rs. 5,28,000/- to the complainant towards insurance claim.
(ii) OP shall pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the complainant.
(iii) Besides, OP shall also pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation.
13. Aforesaid payment shall be made within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
14. Complaint is allowed and disposed of in aforesaid terms.
15. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
16. Announced on the 11th September, 2007.
(Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj