State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bhagirathmal vs United India Ins. Co. Ltd. on 17 August, 2009
Appeal No.250/08 Bhagirathmal V. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Before: Mr.Justice Sunil Kumar Garg-President Mrs.Vimla Sethiya-Member
Shri Amit Singh Shekhawat,counsel for the appellant Shri M.L.Vyas,counsel for the respondent Date of Judgement: 17.8.09 BY THE STATE COMMISSION This appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant against the order dated 7.1.08 passed by the District Forum,Sikar in complaint no.20//07,by which the complaint of the complainant appellant was dismissed.
It arises in the following circumstances:
That the complainant appellant had filed a complaint against the respondent insurance company before the District Forum,Sikar on 18.1.07 interalia stating that the complainant appellant had taken a shopkeepers insurance policy for the period 24.12.04 to 23.12.05 for a sum of Rs.60,000/- by which the risk of fire was got insured and further the risk of burglary and house braking was also got insured and for which the policy was also insured for a sum of Rs.60,000/-. It was further stated in the complaint that the goods worth Rs.2 lacs were in the shop and on the night of 18.8.05 when his son was sitting in the shop at 4 2 P.M, about 50-60 persons came in 7-8 jeeps and those persons were armed with lathis and sarias and have started beating the complainant as well as his son and thereafter they took his son in the jeep and the accused persons were belonging to the vine contractor,as a result of which the complainant as well as his son had received injuries. On that report the police had chalked a FIR no.100/05 for committing offences u/s 147, 148,149,323,365, IPC. It was further stated in the complaint that the complainant appellant had preferred a claim with the respondent insurance company, but that claim was repudiated by the respondent insurance company through letter dated 20.3.06 in the following manner:
"As per Surveyor Report: On the enquiry from villagers they confirmed that culprits did not loot any goods morever there is no mention of any burglary of theft of goods from shop in FIR & FR. The claim for theft or Burglary or loot or Plunder is your second thought,hence, we absolve ourselves from any further liabilities,arising out of this claim;which please note."
Thereafter the present complaint was filed.
A reply was filed by the respondent insurance company before the District Forum on 23.1.07 and in the reply they have taken the same pleas which were taken in the repudiation letter dated 20.3.06 and apart from that it was stated that since the culprits had come only with the intention to cause injuries to the complainant appellant and since the goods lying in the shop were not stolen by them,therefore,the complainant appellant was not entitled to any claim and the claim was rightly repudiated and further it was stated that Shri Neelesh Bhatia,the surveyor 3 appointed by the respondent insurance company in his report dated 18.1.06 had also come to the conclusion that complainant had lodged the claim to obtain undue advantage and further no loss had been caused by the culprits and it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
The District Forum after hearing both the parties,through the impugned order dated 7.1.08 had dismissed the complaint as stated above,interalia holding that in the FIR no.100/05 allegations which were made were in respect of beating and not in respect of looting and thus the complainant appellant had failed to prove the fact that the goods lying in the shop were looted by the culprits.
Aggrieved from that order,this appeal has been filed by the complainant appellant.
In this appeal,the main contention of the learned counsel for the complainant appellant is that since the police had added section 427 IPC when the challan was filed against the culprits,therefore,this fact itself reveals that some mischief was committed by the culprits causing loss to the complainant of Rs.50/- or more,therefore,the fact that when the incident had taken place,the complainant appellant had also suffered the loss to his property which was lying in the shop at the time of incident and thus,the repudiation of the claim by the respondent insurance company as well as the dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum be quashed and set aside and appeal be allowed.
On the other hand,the learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and 4 perused the record.
In this case,so far as the question that the shop of the complainant appellant was insured against the risk of burglary is not in dispute for a sum of Rs.60,000/- each for the period 24.12.04 to 23.1.2.05. There is also no dispute on the point that some persons had entered in the shop of the complainant appellant on 18.8.05 and had caused injuries to the complainant appellant and his son and further the police had submitted a challan against 8 persons for committing offences u/s 365, 147,148,149,323,325,452,427 IPC. There is also no dispute on the point that initially section 427 IPC was not added by the police when the FIR was registered but when the challan was filed this section was also found in that.
There is also no dispute on the point that the surveyor Shri Neelesh Bhatia,appointed by the respondent insurance company in his report dated 18.1.06 had come to the conclusion that no loss was suffered by the complainant appellant at the time of incident.
In the facts and circumstances just narrated above,the question for consideration is whether the repudiation of the claim by the respondent insurance company was justified or not; and similarly the dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum could be sustained or not;
In our considered opinion,in this case if for the sake of argument it is held that some loss was done at the time of incident and that is why section 427 IPC was added by the police, but the question is how much loss the complainant appellant had suffered and for that detailed examination of the evidence is required specially when the FIR is silent on point of loss.
5Therefore,on the very face the repudiation of the claim by the respondent insurance company as well as the dismissal of the complaint by the District Forum appear to be justified,but since section 427 IPC had been added by the police,therefore,if the complainant appellant feels that he had suffered a loss of goods lying in the shop at the time of incident, for that he should approach the civil court for adjudication how much loss he has suffered and that loss could not be ascertained by the District Forum specially when the surveyor had found no loss.
For reasons as stated above,this appeal filed by the complainant appellant deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed. However liberty is given to the complainant appellant to approach the civil court for claiming compensation and for that the time spent before the District Forum as well as before this Commission is exempted u/s 14 of the Limitation Act as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Laxmi Engineering Works V.PSG Industrial Institute reported in 1995(III)SCC 583.
Member President