ANGEL TALKIES Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the State Commission in respect of a policy of burglary taken by it from the respondent-Insurance Company for a particular period in question.

(2.) THE appellant as complainant was running his Cinema House in Guntur District in the State of Andhra Pradesh. It is stated that on 30.8.1989 there was a 'Bharat Band' called by a certain political party. Some workers of that particular party ransacked the Cinema House of the complainant on that day causing loss to the building and to the property of the complainant. It is stated that prints of the movies 'Agni' and 'Aartha Nadam' and certain other articles like cinema scope lenses, 35 mm. projection lenses, etc. were stolen. A report was lodged with the police and a claim was also filed with the Insurance Company. A Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company who did not wholly agree to the claim of the appellant-complainant. It appears that complainant put forward his claim under the fire policy which did not cover theft of the articles. Surveyor so appointed assessed the damage to the premises at Rs. 7,000/-. It, however, transpired before the State Commission that the complainant has also taken another policy for burglary. Since the Surveyor so appointed had gone to the question of theft, etc. at that time but there was no claim under the burglary policy, State Commission in the interest of justice considered the claim under both the policies i.e. fire and burglary which were taken by the complainant. It appears from the record that till the complaint was filed the claim of the complainant had not been settled by the Insurance Company. But then for that complainant had also to share the blame inasmuch as it did not advance its claim under the burglary policy.

(3.) WE have also examined the impugned judgment and submission of learned Counsel for the parties. We do not find that there is any error in the reasoning of the State Commission for us to take a different view. Rather State Commission has been quite helpful to the complainant-appellant in spite of the complainant not advancing its claim to the Insurance Company under the burglary policy, yet the claim was taken under consideration, in the face of Section 64-UM of the Insurance Act, 1938. This appeal is dismissed.