Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Thereafter, a police party reached the site of sabotage at about 4:10 AM and recorded Rapat Rojnamcha C-7 alongwith a subsequent visit report Annexure C-7/A on the same day at 5:30 PM. Thereafter, preliminary survey was conducted on 8th December 2007 by Sh. Chaman Singhal, who was deputed by the respondent No.3, who measured the depth of the Labsa oil so drained/oozed out and thereafter, submitted preliminary spot survey report Annexure C-9, which depicts that said repot was made within a few hours after the occurrence and which had specific averments of damage to the storage tanks/valves, which had resulted into leakage of the said Labsa oil. The preliminary investigator had also verified the stock position as 9 inches in tanks as on the 8th of December, 2007. The photographs to this effect were also annexed with the report depicting the real picture at site and the fact that damage had been caused to the tanks, as a result thereof Labsa Oil had leaked/oozed out in the insureds premises, as per the averments made in the complaint.

14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of case file minutely.

15. Mr. Raghu Nandan Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant argued that this is a clear case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, on the part of the opposite parties and the just claim of the complainant had been wrongly repudiated vide Annexure C-18 by wrongly holding that it is false claim lodged by the complainant. As per him, the report was immediately lodged by S.C. Kumar, Vice President, to the police on 08.12.20007 at about 5:30 AM, which was entered as report No. 18 in Rojnamacha dated 08.12.2007 of Police Station Barotiwala, wherein, it had been clearly stated that the yesterday night i.e. 07.12.2007 at around 2:00AM, few unknown person had forcibly entered into the premises of factory and when the guard came to prevent them, then they fled away and thereafter, it was found that around 50 Mt. Labsa oil had been drained out from two of the storage tanks and one of the valve had also started leaking due to such act. Even, during the preliminary survey conducted by Sh. Chaman Singhal, Labsa Oil was found drained/oozed out as the depth level of the Labsa oil in the tanks were 3 inches in one tank and 2 in the other tank. The fact of forcible entry into the factory premises and damage caused to the storage tanks and valves, which had resulted into leakage of Labsa oil had also been established in the report. The survey reports of M/s S. Soni and company and also of Royal Associates cannot be relied upon, since these reports are not based upon any technical expert consultation. He also argued that there is no doubt delay on the part of the opposite parties in repudiating the claim, since, the claim was repudiated after a period near about 2 years on 27.11.2009. He also drew our attention to the various photographs annexed with the complaint as annexure R-19/b, R-19/c, R-19/d, R-19/f and R-19/g, which clearly depicts sprinkling of Labsa oil on the floor and damage to the tanks as well as to the pipes of the Labsa tanks.

4. As no IPC section has been charged by the police authorities and this does not comply the policy conditions and considering this no liability arises out on the insurers.
5. As per physical verification of stock as on 16.12.07 the stock comes in negative which proves that the stock register is not maintained properly.
5. Opposite parties also engaged an Investigating Agency, named Royal Associates, who submitted report, Annexure R-31, and gave the following opinion:-
On the basis of above said findings, we are of the opinion that loss of Labsa due to Burglars is not genuine. Security guards and incharge of security clearly stated in his statements as well as affidavit that they given previous statements about loss under pressure of factory official, so these statements should to treated as cancelled. They further said that loss is being manipulated by factory official. Moreover Labsa is not easily available in market and taking it out from tank is also not easy as it is very harmful for body parts. There are chances of leakage of Labsa due to fault in tanks or theft of Labsa by factory officials and in both cases it is not covered under policy. And the most important things that no FIR was lodged for said loss only DDR was lodged. Insurer may deal with claim as per terms and conditions of policy, keeping in view of above said findings. This report is issued without prejudice.

16. As regards the observation that there was negative stock of Labsa Oil on the date of alleged loss, final survey report, Annexure R-29, and investigation report, Annexure R-31, disprove the same. In report, Annexure R-29, it is mentioned, vide para 16.0, that entries in the stock register of Labsa Oil showing the stock position from 01.04.2007 to 16.12.2007, were verified and compared with the vouchers in support of the same period and that on comparison of the entries and vouchers and taking into account the quantity of loss reported by the complainant, i.e. 41,814.8 Kgs., it was found that not only that there should not have been any quantity of Labsa Oil in the stock, but there was supposed to be negative stock of 854.76 Kgs., but actually there was 3254 Kgs. of oil as the depth of oil in the tank was 9. These observations of the surveyor, even if taken on their face value, do not show that no spillage of Labsa Oil had taken place or that the claim was bogus. Complainant reported loss of 41,814.8 Kgs. This figure may not be arithmetically accurate. When such a huge loss is there, and the lost liquid is spilled around over a large area, as in this case, exact quantity cannot be worked out. Assessment is done normally by approximation.