GRAVITY CRIMPERS Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nobody appears for the appellant. 1. It is the complainant who is appellant before us. Complaint of the complainant for alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company, first respondent was dismissed by the State Commission. Complainant alleged that it was having a factory premises in the GIDC Industrial Estate, Ankleshwar which factory shed it had taken on rent. Complainant had taken an insurance policy against the risk of fire, lightening, rioting etc. from the Insurance Company. There were two policies, one was for Rs. 2,50,000/- for stock and stock in trade, and the second was for Rs. 11,50,000/- for machineries and accessories. The period covered under the policy was from 18.3.1992 to 17.3.1993. Allegation was that on account of the incident of Ayodhya on 6.12.1992 there was rioting and looting in the area where the factory of the complainant was situated. On 8.12.1992 during the night hours the factory of the complainant was attacked and looted by miscreants. Complainant could not visit the factory premises till 28.12.1992 because of the tense situation. On 28.12.1992 when partners of the complainant did visit the factory, they came to know of the heavy damage and loss to their factory. Complainant lodged a complaint in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ankleshwar which was referred to Police for investigation on 31.12.1992. Insurance Company was informed of the incident. Surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company who visited the factory premises on two dates. On 12.1.1993 claims were submitted under the two policies. Since the claim was not settled complaint was filed.

(2.) Insurance Company took up the stand that it is all bogus story put up by the complainant and there was no such incident of rioting and looting as alleged. It is submitted that the claim was rejected as back as on 7.9.1993 and the complaint was barred by limitation. It was submitted that the complainant was a loosing and sick concern and it had totally ceased work as there were disputes amongst the partners of the complainant. It was submitted that Insurance Company enquired from D.S.P. at Bharuch whether there was incident of rioting on 8.12.1992 in GIDC, Ankleshwar and the Station House Officer GIDC, Ankleshwar informed the Insurance Company that no incident of rioting had been recorded in the concerned Police Station Diary on 8.12.1992. An enquiry was made with the Gujarat Electricity Board, GIDC, Ankleshwar with regard to the power supply and the alleged incident. The Board official informed that power supply was permanently disconnected in June, 1991 at the request of the complainant. Board also informed the Insurance Company that there was no incident of rioting having taken place to its knowledge in GIDC Estate, Ankleshwar. Insurance Company was further informed that electricity charges amounting to Rs. 5,11,123.33 were due from the complainant to the Electricity Board till May, 1991. In brief stand of the Insurance Company was that the factory was not at all in working condition and a spacious plea of rioting had been advanced to make a claim under the insurance policies. Police in its report to the Judicial Magistrate also said that no fruitful result could be obtained as per their enquiry. It is not necessary for us to go into further allegations of the Insurance Company as to the falsity of the claim by the complainant. It is surprising that instead of lodging a report with the police on 28.12.1992 complainant could have gone to Judicial Magistrate and filed a complaint there under the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) State Commission after examining the whole matter in depth recorded a finding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company and that the complainant had failed to prove any incident on 8.12.1992 where its factory was attacked by rioters and damage caused. State Commission, therefore, dismissed the complaint.