MANIRAJ INDUSTRY Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MR . Justice A.K. Samantaray, President -This appeal is by the unsuccessful complainant in C.D. Case No. 154 of 2004, which was filed before the District Forum, Cuttack against the opposite party/respondent Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Mission Road, Cuttack. By means of the appeal memo, the order dated 4.1.2006 passed in C.D. Case No. 154 of 2004 has been assailed.

(2.) THE complainant by filing the aforementioned complaint against the opposite party - Insurance Company claimed rupees 2,00,000 towards cost of 500 cartons of biscuits, Rs. 2,50,000 towards cost of 500 tins of essence flavour and compensation of rupees 25,000 towards harassment and mental agony undergone by him due to deficiency in service on the part of the said Insurance Company.

(3.) THE case of the complainant, as stated in the complaint petition, is that he has a small scale industry for manufacturing biscuits in the State of Orissa. His Industry goes in the name and style "M/s. Maniraj Industry". His gross turn over is around rupees 3 crores per year. To facilitate his business, he insured his industry and secured a loan of rupees 1.5 crores from various financial institutions. He had taken a burglary policy of rupees 44,50,000 and paid a premium of rupees 7,767 and the insurance policy was valid from 2.4.1999 to 1.4.2000. On 29.10.1999, there was a super cyclone in the coastal district of Orissa and after the said super cyclone, there was chaotic condition and there was snatching and theft everywhere in the coastal area. On 3.11.1999 at 4 p.m. some unknown culprits effected their entry into his Industry premises and looted away 500 cartons of biscuits and 500 jars of essence flavour causing him loss to the tune of rupees 4,50,000. The complainant lodged a complaint before the police and laid a claim before the opposite party Insurance Company for rupees 10,50,000. After considering the matter, the Insurance Company repudiated his claim on the ground that theft that occurred as per his allegation as an after effect of the super cyclone and the complainant not having paid any extra premium for the super cyclone, his claim was not tenable. The Surveyor, who was appointed by the Insurance Company, also submitted his report and final opinion in the same line. The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum earlier which was returned to the opposite party for reconsideration. In the said earlier C.D. Case No. 138 of 2001, the opposite party Insurance Company again took the same stand that the claim of the complainant was not to be entertained in view of exclusion Clause (iv)(a) of the insurance policy and also general condition No. 4. since after reconsideration on the same ground the opposite party repudiated the claim totally, the complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum for the second time.