LAWS(PAT)-2011-3-179

MANAGING DIRECTOR, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD THRU SRI MALAY LALA ASST MANAGER CUM DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY AND ORS Vs. STATE OF BIHAR; JMD FOOT WEAR PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR ROHIT RISHAV

Decided On March 10, 2011
MANAGING DIRECTOR, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD THRU SRI MALAY LALA ASST MANAGER CUM DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY AND ORS Appellant
V/S
STATE OF BIHAR; JMD FOOT WEAR PVT LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR ROHIT RISHAV Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Counsel for the opposite party.

(2.) The Petitioners all five in number are working in the Oriental Insurance Company, Limited as Manager at the center, in different offices of the company. The opposite party No. 2 JMD Foot Wear Private Limited is a business undertaking which had taken loan from the Bank and set up a shop for sale of Shoes known as "Khadims". It is alleged in the complaint petition that the Petitioners 4 and 5 persuaded the opposite party No. 2 to take the insurance from its company. The Petitioner took insurance policy covering, burglary which is Annexure-2 to this application. The document is admitted by both the parties. In between the night of 21st and 22nd of February, 2003, a burglary was committed in the shop of opposite party No. 2. The F.I.R. was instituted on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 and a search was made and final form was submitted against unknown persons.

(3.) The Petitioner opposite party No. 2 raised his claim for payment of insurance amount from the company of the Petitioners. The company paid the amount which was the loss suffered by opposite party No. 2 on account of stocks stolen during the burglary. The opposite party -complainant is aggrieved by the fact that the Petitioners, who are the officers of the Insurance Company, refused to make payment of Rs. 91,000/- and odd which was stolen by the miscreants lying in the cash box of the shop. For the purpose of search the Oriental Insurance Company had appointed a surveyor to enquire into the mater. The Surveyor enquired into the matter, and reported that since the money stolen, was from the cash box, and not the 'safe' as defined under insurance policy, the Petitioners were not liable to pay the insurance amount.