ASHOKA TYRE HOUSE Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS First Appeal is against the order dated 22.4.1996 of the State Commission, Chandigarh in Complaint No. 448/1993. Brief facts of the case are :

(2.) THE complainant M/s. Ashoka Tyre House runs the business of selling tyres. His stocks of tyres were insured for a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs with the respondent, M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period 8.4.1991 to 7.4.1992. It is a case of the complainant that a theft took place on the night of 12/13th November, 1991 when the locks of his business premises were broken and some tyres were stolen. On the 13th itself he filed an FIR with the Police and also reported the loss to the respondent. On the 13th itself, when the police came to investigate, they assessed that 26 tyres were missing. The respondent appointed a Surveyor by name Shri R.C. Chugh who called for information from the complainant on 17.11.1981. The information was submitted and a formal insurance claim was lodged on 18.1.1992. Thereafter, in spite of number of reminders from the complainant, the Insurance Company failed to settle the claim. The complainant thereafter gave a legal notice which was replied by the respondent on March 16, 1993 (Exhibit -H). In this letter, the respondent denied that the complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 1,81,000/ - and that he was not co -operating in supplying certain documentary evidence like the stock register. They also mentioned that if no reply is received within 15 days, they will treat the claim file as closed.

(3.) IN response to this Ashoka Tyre House filed a complaint before the State Commission, Chandigarh. The State Commission dismissed the complaint essentially on the ground that the complainant did not maintain the stock register. It further held that there was only a general allegation that the tyres valued at Rs. 1,81,000/ - were stolen; yet no details of the tyres as to what was their make and from whom they were purchased, etc. have been indicated in the complaint. It also observed that the complainant had not brought before the State Commission any photograph of his premises where shutters were allegedly broken. It is against this order, the appeal has been filed.