LAWS(NCD)-2004-5-18

MD NASHEMUDDIN Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

Decided On May 24, 2004
MD. NASHEMUDDIN Appellant
V/S
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, Md. Nashemuddin, filed Complaint Case No. 204 of 1994 before the District Forum, Munger, against the Insurance Company as well as the respondent No. 5, Branch Manager, S.B.I. (State Bank of India), Munger, contending that he had taken a cash credit facility from the respondent No. 5 for its wholesale business upto a limit of Rs. 2 lakh. The respondent No. 5 got the stock of the complainant insured with the respondent No. 1. The premium paid was debited to his account. It is his say that his business was extended by hiring Stall No. 19, Raja Bazar Sabzi Mandi, Munger on 1.7.1992. The bank was informed about the same on 3.7.1992. The bank renewed the insurance policy in question on 17.7.1992 itself.

(2.) It is contended that on 7.12.1992 curfew was clamped in the entire Munger town and it continued till 13.12.1992. When the curfew was relaxed for two hours on 13.12.1992, the complainant found that the entire stock of vegetables in the Stall No. 19 at Raja Bazar Sabzi Mandi, Munger had been looted away by miscreants. An FIR was lodged and the Bank was informed accordingly. After things came to normalcy on 21.12.1992, he had requested the Bank to get his insurance claim finalised. On 15.1.1993 surveyor of the Insurance Company assessed the loss after inspecting the business premises at Stall No. 19, Raja Bazar Sabji Mandi. He was informed that all papers regarding stock purchase vouchers, sales records were missing along with the articles in the stall.

(3.) The claim was not settled and finally on 26th October, 1993, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that for the stocks at Stall No. 19, Raja Bazar Sabzi Mandi there was no insurance coverage. It is, therefore, contended by the complainant that he had suffered loss due to gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the respondent No. 1 and in any case at the negligence of the officers of the respondent No. 5.