SANDHYA Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a complaint filed by Sri Subrata Sinha, Proprietor of Sandhya located at 316/A/1, Netaji Road, P.O. Khagra, Dist. Murshidabad, against the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Division No. XII having its office at 5, N.S.Road, 1st Floor, Kolkata-700 001 and two others alleging deficiency of service in the matter of payment of insurance claim consequent to a burglary in the shop.

(2.) The facts of the case briefly are that the complainant, who is the proprietor of the shop, has been carrying on his business in readymade garments and costly sarees at the above address in the district of Murshidabad. The petitioner obtained two insurance policies from the OP Nos. 1 and 2 for fire and burglary. The burglary policy was for Rs. 50.00 lacs being Policy No. 102000/46/04/7500394 covering the period from 20.4.2004 to 19.4.2005. The complainant stated that he obtained business loan from OP No. 3, Axis Bank, for Rs. 30.00 lacs against the stock-in-trade. He had been paying interest and instalments on loan to the said bank. The proprietor of Sandhya, Mr. Subrata Sinha, the complainant, stated that he closed the shop on 24.1.2005 at about 4.00 p.m. and went to Hooghly on the following day for attending the funeral ceremony of his father-in-law, who expired on the same day. When he returned to the shop for opening it in the morning on 27.1.2005 he found that theft had occurred in his shop by breaking backside windows. He stated that the said theft took place between 4.00 p.m. on 24.1.2005 and 9.00 a.m. on 27.1.2005. He immediately filed an FIR with Baharampore Police Station and also intimated the said incident to the OP Nos. 1 and 2. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 appointed one Mr. G.G. Mukhopadhyay, Surveyor, who sent a letter dated 20.2.2005 to the complainant to submit certain documents for the purpose of investigation of the case. He contended that he had complied with the said request and supplied the documents to the surveyor. The police station on the basis of the said FIR started inquiry and investigation and a criminal case being G.R. Case No. 137/2005 was lodged. On 29.7.2005 police submitted their final report before the learned C.J.M., Baharampore and on perusal of the said report the learned CJM, Baharampore closed the case as FRT. He further stated that the theft of sarees as reported in the FIR was duly corroborated by the stock taking report prepared by the OP No. 3, i.e. the financing bank. The total cost of stolen goods was estimated at Rs. 44,30,075. He also stated that the financing bank had verified the stock statement and the stock book of the complainant and hence, there cannot be any dispute regarding the quantity of sarees taken away by the miscreants on 24.1.2005. He further stated that the number of sarees stolen by the thieves have been counted to be 761 as per stock book. The OP Nos. 1 and 2 repudiated the claim after an inordinate delay which itself is a deficiency on their part. The complainant has come up with the prayer that necessary direction be issued on the OP Nos. 1 and 2 to reimburse the claim for Rs. 43,00,000 to the complainant consequent to the said burglary and also to pay interest @ 12% p.a. against the claim amount from the date of the claim till the payment is made by the OPs and also to award compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000 for mental agony and harassment along with cost of Rs. 5,000.

(3.) The OP Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written argument contending that the complaint was false, frivolous, motivated and concocted. They further contended that the claim was repudiated on the basis of the report of the surveyor who visited the shop after making the preliminary enquiries and found that no one in the area could give him any information regarding the alleged theft. They also contended that the purchase bills produced by the surveyor mostly gave false addresses like Howrah Hat, etc. and on local inquiry the named suppliers could not be identified. It was a fraudulent claim as per report of the surveyor and, therefore, the same had been repudiated by them. They have supplied a copy of the surveyors report along with their written objection.