NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. GANESH TRADING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In original complaint No. 81 of 2002, Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, had originally directed the complainant on 30.1.2003 to seek his remedy before the civil court. In appeal, the above order was set aside by the National Commission, on 13.7.2005 and the matter was remanded to the State Commission for fresh consideration on merits. The State Commission considered the matter afresh and allowed the complaint in its order of 7.12.2006. The Appellant National Insurance Company has been directed to pay Rs. 10,40,413/- to the Complainants with 9% interest together with Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards costs. This order of the State Commission is the subject matter of the present appeal before us, filed by National Insurance Company Ltd. The appeal has been filed a delay of 52 days. The explanation submitted by the Appellant is considered and the delay is condoned.

(2.) As seen from the record, the Respondent Ganesh Trading Company, Ludhiana (Complainant in the proceedings before the State Commission) is a registered partnership firm trading in all kinds of automotive and machine parts. Business risk of the Complainant was sought to be covered through two policies taken from the Appellant, National Insurance Company. The stocks were covered to the extent of Rs. 150 lakhs against risk of fire and other perils like burglary. The second policy covered the risk to cash up to limit of Rs. 5 lakhs. On 9.12.2000 the shop was closed at 6.30 p.m. and the shutters locked in the usual course. The next day being a Sunday, the shop was to be open on 11.12.2000. When the peon of the Respondent/Complainant went at 9.00 a.m., he noticed that the shutters were broken open.It was found that the main front iron shutter had been broken and forcible entry made by breaking a glass door inside. Reportedly, the burglars had decamped with stocks worth Rs. 9 lakhs and cash Rs. 1.4 lakhs approximately. The Police were informed immediately, who registered an FIR.

(3.) The Appellant/OP appointed two Surveyors and an investigator, in a succession and eventually repudiated the claim. The ground for repudiation, as per the letter of 7.1.2002, was that the claim of forcible entry into the showroom of the company for the purpose of burglary was not proved and as per the investigator appointed by the Appellant, the alleged burglary was stage managed by the Complainant.