State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Shri Popatlal Satra, Prop. M/S.Sagar ... on 15 December, 2008
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI FIRST APPEAL NO. 1687 OF 2003 Date of filing : 05/11/2003 IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 123 OF 2002 Date of order : 15/12/2008 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM : THANE M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office Watve Bldg., 2nd floor, Near Shivaji Statue, Naupada Road, Dombivali (E)-421201. Appellant/org. O.P. V/s. Shri Popatlal Satra Prop. M/s.Sagar (Bentex) Thru his C.A. Shri Haresh P. Satra Having Shop at Pathare Bldg., Gokhale Road, Thane 400 602. Respondent/org. complainant Corum : Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Smt. S.P. Lale, Honble Member Present: None for the appellant.
Advocate R.S. Kelewadikar for the respondent.
- : ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member This appeal is filed by org. O.P./United India Insurance Co. Ltd. against the judgement/award passed by District Consumer Forum Thane in consumer complaint No.123/2002 dated 25/08/2003, whereby while allowing the complaint, the Forum below directed the O.P. to pay to the complainant sum of Rs.3,71,342/- towards insurance policy taken by the complainant and also directed to pay interest @ 9% p.a. and compensation of Rs.10,000/-.
The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :-
The complainant filed consumer complaint against United India Insurance Co. Ltd. as his insurance claim for the loss of articles and items kept in his shop at Gokhale Road, Thane had been repudiated by the Insurance Company. According to the complainant, he had taken shopkeepers insurance policy for his shop styled as M/s.Sagar (Bentex), Pathare Building, Gokhale Road, Thane. His policy number was 121401/48/34/16/869/2000. It was in force for period 25/11/2000 to 24/11/2001. On 30/04/2001 in the morning when the complainant went to open his shop, he learnt that burglary had taken place in his shop on the preceding night. Immediately, he lodged F.I.R. in Naupada Police Station, Thane. Police made investigation, recorded panchanama at the spot of offence. Police could not recover stolen articles mainly wrist watches. The complainant then lodged insurance claim with O.P. But, O.P. on 26/04/2002 repudiated the claim on the ground that the complainant did not keep insured articles in lock and key or in safe custody and thereby, violated terms and conditions of the policy. Aggrieved by this repudiation, the complainant filed consumer complaint and claimed damages for loss incurred due to robbery and also claimed expenses of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.15,000/- for mental harassment. He also claimed interest from 30/04/2001 to 30/04/2002 amounting to Rs.54,548/-.
O.P. filed written statement and contested the matter. In the written statement, various pleas were taken by the Insurance Company. It pleaded that complainants version that there was burglary was not proved at all by the Surveyor appointed by it. The Surveyor noticed that there was closed shutter of the shop and it could not be opened without causing damage to the shop. The whole episode of burglary was unbelievable. Therefore, it was pleased to disallow the claim lodged by the complainant/owner of the said shop. It specifically pleaded that the shutter of the shop was not in such a state of appearance that forcible entry could be made and therefore, there is no evidence to show that burglary has taken place at his shop.
The Learned District Consumer Forum on considering affidavits and documents placed on record was pleased to allow the complaint and passed the impugned order. As such, Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
This appeal was pending in this Commission from 2003. Since, respondent is senior citizen, it was expedited and it was fixed for hearing on 12/11/2008. Notice was given by Popatlal B. Satra to the Branch Manager of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Dombivali Branch as well as Division Office, Kalyan. From the stamp of Insurance Company, it is clear that the Division Office, Kalyan of Insurance Company received notice that this appeal has been fixed for final hearing on 12/11/2008, which is clear from acknowledgement produced by the Counsel for the respondent. On 12/11/2008 Board was discharged and hence it was adjourned today i.e.15/12/2008. None is appeared for the appellant. So, we heard Advocate R.S. Kelewadikar for respondent and perused the appeal memo.
We are finding that the Forum below rightly decided the complaint. It committed no error of law in allowing the complaint and passing award in favour of complainant/respondent herein. The only ground on which the appellant relied upon to file appeal is that according to appellant, there was no burglary. But, the Survey Report suggested that shutter bent is so ordinary that no repairs were carried out. This whole thing shows forcible entry is not witnessed in any way in this case. Based upon this statement of Survey Report, Insurance Company was pleased to repudiate the claim by its letter dated 26/04/2002. However, Company had appointed Essex Investigators and Essex Investigatord by their report dated 19/11/2001 clearly held that burglary had taken place in the shop and that too forcibly by using jack on the bottom portion of the shutter on the center portion to get easy access to enter and return by the culprits. The investigator also noted that Naupada Police Station registered offence vide C.R. No.155/2001 and under Sections 454, 457 & 380 of I.P.C. This would clearly show that these were the offences registered by Police since burglary had taken place and there was forcible entry to commit offence of theft. In this view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that there was material on record for the District Consumer Forum to hold that the repudiation made by the Insurance Company was improper, unjust and therefore, it was pleased to allow the complaint relying upon the Exhibit-E, report of Essex Investigators submitted to United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thus, the Insurance Company cannot be heard to say that Surveyor had taken doubt about whole story presented by the respondent herein. After loss of wrist watches from the shop of the complainant, complainant had lodged F.I.R. Police had recorded Panchanama. Police had carried out investigation, registered offence of house-breaking and theft. There was forcible entry in the shop in question and by effecting forcible entry, the culprits had taken away wrist watches worth Rs.4,19,600/-. When this is so, we fail to understand how Insurance Company/appellant herein was pleased to repudiate the claim on flimsy ground. The investigator was appointed by them and investigator had clearly opined that there was house-breaking, there was burglary in the shop of respondent and therefore, in our view at least relying on the report of Investigator supported by loss statement reported by Surveyor, appellant/Insurance Company should have given insurance claim to the respondent herein. In not doing so, appellant/Insurance Company was guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and in the circumstances, Forum below it appears rightly decided the complaint in favour of respondent. We are finding no legal flaw in the impugned award passed by District Consumer Forum. In this view of the matter, appeal appears to be without any substance. Hence, we pass the following order :-
-: ORDER :-
1.
Appeal is dismissed.
2. No order as to costs.
3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
(S. P. Lale) (P.N. Kashalkar) Member Presiding Judicial Member dd.