MEDICO DISTRIBUTOR Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a dealer in medicines, who had obtained some cash credit facility from the State Bank of India, Ranaghat Branch in District Nadia, to the extent of Rs. 6 lakhs, by hypothecating the business stock with the said bank. He had also obtained an insurance policy with the respondent, National Insurance Co. Ltd. for the period from 21.03.2005 to 20.03.2006 for a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs. The case of the complainant/petitioner is that during the subsistence of the aforesaid policy, a dacoity took place in his business premises when the keys of the godown were snatched at gun point. The matter was reported to the police vide GDD dated 29.07.2005 and later criminal case was also instituted before Ld. CJM, Krishnanagar, who has taken the congnizance and taken action against the accused persons namely Partha Mustafi, Benu Dutta and Sujit Sarkar. The alleged loss was intimated to the Insurance Company on 18.08.2005. As the Insurance Company failed to pay the claim, the complainant/petitioner approached the District Forum, by way of a complaint dated 07.07.2008, which was dismissed as not maintainable.

(2.) BEING aggrieved from the dismissal of his complaint, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The said Commission, vide order dated 29.03.2010 set aside the order of the District Forum with a direction to the Insurance Company to appoint a surveyor and investigate the matter. Pursuant to the said direction, a surveyor was appointed by the Insurance Company, who submitted his report to the Insurance Company on 25.06.2010. The claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company vide its letter dated 15.07.2010, inter -alia, on the ground that the alleged theft/dacoity had not been established. Being aggrieved from the dismissal of his complaint, the petitioner approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed vide order dated 21.04.2013, the complainant/petitioner is before us, by way of this revision petition.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner is that when the matter was remanded back to the District Forum by the State Commission, no presence was put in by the Insurance Company and despite that, the complaint came to be rejected by the District Forum. He also submits even the report of the surveyor was not submitted by the Insurance Company to the District Forum.