Mono Industries vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. on 10 March, 2008
11. Learned
counsel for the appellant attempted to show that cross-examination of Mr. S.K.
Mittal, surveyor appointed by respondent no. 1, is sufficient to reject the
report of the surveyor. We need not go into details of such cross-examination
for the simple reason that the appellant himself did not prove the alleged fact
of burglary in the godown. Learned counsel for the appellant invited our
attention to Mono Industries Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [II (2008) CPJ
125 (NC)]. This Commission held that the removal of the goods by the culprits
after removal of the roof-sheets and thereafter their exit after breaking of
the locks of the godown could be indicative of burglary. In the present case,
however, there is no iota of evidence to show that the entrance of the godown
was opened by use of force. The appellant failed to place on record any
material to show that the theft had preceded breaking open of the lock of the
godown or causing entry by use of force. What appears from the record is that
after Jan. 1997, the appellant was not the distributor of Waxpol engine oil or
lubricants. He has not placed on record the order which showed termination of
the agency. There is also nothing on record to show that shelf life of the
products was in existence and, therefore, value of the stock was as per the
details given by the appellant.