GOPINATH TALKIES Vs. ORIENTAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant himself is the claimant and he has argued his case to day. The opposite party-the Oriental General Insurance Company has filed a written version and none is present on behalf of the opposite party.

(2.) The complainant's claim is based on the theft of certain machineries from the premises of his Cinema Hall where he had installed certain machineries. According to him, on 17.9.87, a burglary was committed in the Cinema Hall by some unknown culprits during his absence by over-powering the watchman of the Cinema Hall. He reported the matter to the Police on 17.9.87. As the machineries were insured by the Oriental General Insurance Company (for short Insurance Company) which provides compensation on account of loss on theft or burglary, the complainant filed the Claim Form before the Insurance Company. According to him, though an Investigator was appointed and he produced all the documents necessary for the purposes of investigation as and when required by the Investigator nothing was intimated to him about the result of investigation and his claim was not settled for which he has approached this Commission. In the complaint petition, he has prayed for compensation of Rs.2,60,000/- for the lass occasioned due to burglary and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience to him. The opposite party filed a show cause denying the allegations. It has been submitted that the Police investigation revealed that the incident of theft was not true and the case was closed as it was a mistake of law. The investigation report, a copy of which has been submitted alongwith the show cause, also indicate that it was a fabricated claim there being no truth on the basis of which the claim has been made.

(3.) We have gone through the complaint petition and the documents annexed to the show cause. The policy of insurance has not been filed. It is said that certain machineries were covered by it. The policy of insurance which was produced before the Investigator as reported by him does not contain the full details of the machineries which were covered by the Insurance Company. That apart, the facts as revealed from the investigation are that the complainant bring hirer, certain machineries for exhibition of cinema pictures were hired from a person at Cuttack under certain terms and conditions. As he did not pay the hire charges and the remuneration to the operator, the owner of the machinery took away the same from the hall not by a forcible entry but by exercising his right as the owner thereof. The investigation report also reveals that the cash memos or transactions with M/s. Sunil Traders are unreliable documents as the existence of M/s. Sunil Traders was in doubt. Its account was opened and closed after three transactions. The bank records also do not reveal a clear picture as to how and under what circumstances the loan was sanctioned in favour of the complainant and how the Bank Authorities were satisfied about its utilisation. The Investigator also found that the portions of the machinery which are alleged to have been removed in the process of burglary do not show any sign of recent removal as the coupling grooves and threads were found rusted as if those were exposed to the atmosphere on as is where is basis for a pretty long period. It may be noted that the investigation was made about ten days after the alleged incident. For the aforesaid reasons and for the reasons as mentioned in the Investigator's report, we have grave doubts as to the truthfulness of the allegations made by the complainant. We are, therefore, not convinced that it is a fit case where the complainant would be entitled to compensation in this summary proceedings, hence dismissed. It is open to the complainant to take recourse to any appropriate Court of Law if he is so advised.