UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. DEBAKRISHNA MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Justice A.K. Samantaray, President -The Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Manager of the Company, Angul Branch and Regional Manager of the Company are the appellants and have assailed the order of the District Forum, Angul passed on 20.12.2001 in C.D. Case No. 25 of 2001. The aforementioned C.D. Case was filed before the District Forum, Angul with allegation and averments to the effect that the complainant had a grocery shop at Badakera Chhak and the said shop had been insured under Shopkeeper's Insurance Scheme with the United India Insurance Company Limited bearing policy No. 0304101/48/31/11/75 -99 for a sum of Rs. 1,40,000 and the policy was valid from 13.10.1999 to 12.10.2000. It is the case of the complainant that in the midnight of 5/6.1.2000 some miscreants committed theft in the shop of the complainant by breaking open the lock of the grocery shop, for which F.I.R. was lodged before the O.I.C., Bantala Police Station and case was registered by Bantala police vide Bantala P.S. Case No. 3 dated 6.1.2000 under Sections 457/380, IPC which was subsequently registered as G.R. Case No. 6 of 2000 in the Court of the S.D.J.M., Angul. Investigation was taken up by the O.I.C., Bantala Police Station, who later on submitted final report on 10.4.2000 as case true but no clue. It was further stated in the complaint that due to such burglary committed by the unknown culprits, the complainant sustained a loss of Rs. 1,50,000 and submitted his claim before the Branch Manager of the Insurance Company, Angul Branch, but no action was taken by the opposite parties for payment of the claim amount as per the provisions laid down in the terms and conditions of the policy. The complainant stated in the complaint petition further that he was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,40,000 as per the insurance policy and a compensation of Rs. 5,000 towards mental agony and harassment suffered by him. As the opposite parties did not take any steps to settle the claim, the complainant filed the complaint in the District Forum, Angul.

(2.) BOTH the opposite parties filed the written version separately and stated that the shop room in respect of which the policy was taken did not come under the category of Class 'A' construction as per the declaration of the complainant. The police investigation did not mention the value of the stolen property. The complainant has raised false bill without maintaining any stock register. It has been stated in the written version that after receiving the claim petition, the officials of the opposite parties investigated the claim by going to the spot, but the complainant did not cooperate with them and as such the matter was delayed. The claim of the complainant is totally false as the stolen property amounts to Rs. 1,50,000, whereas the complainant's claim is Rs. 1,40,000 only. It is stated further that during course of investigation, the Surveyor of the opposite parties found that the complainant showed different premises which were not mentioned in the policy. The complainant did not allow the surveyor to enter inside the tile roofed room. The lock of the room was not broken and on demand of the Surveyor, the complainant produced the rent agreement which revealed that the occupied premises belonged to one Mrs. Hemalata Mohanty and the theft took place in a wooden cabin. No stock register was produced or proved by the complainant. Non -production of the same by the complainant and non -cooperation with the Surveyor gave rise to suspicion about truth of the claim and on that ground the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the complaint, as there was no deficiency in service on their part.

(3.) AFTER taking up hearing of the matter, the District Forum in its impugned order allowed the complaint petition and directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 towards the claim of the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the order, failing which interest @ 10% was to be paid on the said amount. At the time of hearing of the appeal, the learned Counsel Mr. Sinha appearing for the appellant -Insurance Company submitted that as per the policy condition, the insurer is liable to pay the insured the loss due to any theft that took place in the shop of the complainant. But in the instant matter, the appellants failed to settle the claim of the complainant and repudiated the same. The repudiation was on the ground that the claim was not genuine and the premises from which the articles of the complainant had been stolen was a wooden cabin, which was not insured under the policy. During inspection of the spot by the Surveyor, the complainant showed one tiled roof room and submitted that the articles were stolen by the culprits by breaking open the lock of the tiled roof room. But the complainant was unable to open the room which was then under lock and key and gave out that the lock and key of that room are kept with the house owner, and as such the Surveyor could not get the opportunity to inspect the room. The police during their investigation observed that so far as the complainant is concerned only the stationery articles kept by him in one wooden cabin had been stolen and nothing has been found to have been stolen from any tiled roof shop room. The tenancy agreement, which was produced, revealed that the complainant is not a tenant in respect of the tiled roof shop room and the same had been let out to Mrs. Hemalata Mohanty, who is not the insured under the policy. During investigation by the Surveyor, no cooperation was extended by the complainant and the complainant suppressed material facts while submitting the proposal form, which the insurer came to know at the time of investigation by the Surveyor and for the above reasons the repudiation of the claim by the opposite parties was justified, it was argued.