OM GENERAL STORE Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Om General Store is a Proprietors hip concern. Its proprietor is Kailashchand Maheshwari. The complainant got the furniture, fixtures, goods, cash etc. insured with the opposite party (insurer). Policy No. 9300347/88 was issued to the complainant for the period 13 -12 -1988 to 30 -12 -1989. The shop which was occupied by the complainant was on rent from M/s. M.A. Shankur. The rent fixed was Rs. 500/ - per month. On 27 -11 -1989 at about 3.30 p.m. Mr. Kailashchand noticed people were running frightened from Ramganj Chopad to Ghatgate and were crying that riots have spread out in that area. Kailashchand discussed the issue with his neighbour and decided to close the shop looking at the gravity of the situation. He went to his residence at 3.45p.in. locking the shop. It was noticed by him from the roof top that the smoke is rising up all over the nearby areas. At about 5.30 p.m. he noticed smoke rising up from Ghatgate Bazar. After sometime he was informed on telephone that a crowd has gathered before his shop. The shop has been looted by breaking open the lock and shutter and the goods were taken away by the crowd. The goods which were looted from the shop were placed before it on road and were put to fire. He would not do anything due to the situation prevailing there. After sometime curfew was clamped in the area .On 29 -11 -1989 when curfew was relaxed in the morning, he went to the shop to find outs to what has happened. He found that all goods/stock have been looted from the shop. Furniture and stock lying outside the shop were completely burnt, practically converted into ash. Glasses of the show cases were broken, shutter were damaged and broken. The floor of the shop was full of empty boxes, cartons etc. Matter was reported to the Ramganj Police Station and the case was registered. The matter was also reported at the fire station. The complainant informed the opposite party insurer on 29 -11 -1989. It is said that the opposite party appointed Shri P.K. Bhatia, Surveyor and Loss Assessor and Subhash Jain and Co., Chartered Accountants Jaipur for assessing the loss. Mr. P.K. Bhatia submitted the report (Anx. 16) dt. 8 -3 -1990 and Subhash Jain and Co. submitted the report (Anx. 18) dt. 25 -1 -1990. It is alleged by the complainant that Shri P.K. Bhatia assured him that his claim will be settled at Rs. 1,50,000/ -. In para 22 of the complaint it has been alleged that the original record and the accounts of income and expenditure, sale and purchase etc. were burnt or they were taken away by the rioteers. Besides that the complainant obtained copies of the details of purchase by him from the persons who sold the goods and handed over the papers to the surveyors. A sum of Rs. 600/ - in cash was in the shop which was also taken away by the rioteers. The complainant has narrated a tale of woe in the complaint stating that the opposite party (insurer) despite furnishing the information and the documents did not settle the claim. He, therefore, filed the complaint before the State Commission on 18 -5 -1990 praying that a sum of Rs. 1,50,600/ - may be awarded to him with interest @ 18% p.a. until realisation from 27 -11 -1989. Imposition of penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - was also prayed for. A sum of Rs. 2,500/ - on account of rent and business loss (500 and 200/ -) were claimed from the month the riots had broken out. Estimated expenses of the complaint to the tune of Rs. 12,000/ - were claimed.

(2.) THE complainant submitted photostat copies of the FIR policy No. 9800347/88 dt 30 -12 -1988, list of goods which were burnt or looted. Photostat copy of the quotation of furniture and photostat copy of the certificate given by the officer of the Firebrigate Station.

(3.) THE question with which we are concerned is whether by not settling the claim of the complainant in time the services rendered by the opposite party suffered from deficiency. The shop in question was covered under Traders Combined Policy vide Policy No. 9800347/88 which was valid from 31 -12 -1988 to 30 -12 -1989. The coverage given in the policy is as under: