LAWS(NCD)-2018-11-4

SREE GANESH ENTERPRISES REPRESENTED BY PROPRIETOR NIRMALA GARG Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ANR

Decided On November 01, 2018
Sree Ganesh Enterprises Represented By Proprietor Nirmala Garg Appellant
V/S
Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co Ltd And Anr Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant Sree Ganesh Enterprises against the order dated 03.09.2012 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in SC Case No.CC/32/2010.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant took a burglary policy for her Glass Ampoules producing factory located at C-13, Bind Bihar Ghosh (west) (John Nagar Road) Serampore, District Hooghly from the opposite party Insurance Company. The said policy was valid from 03.09.2001 to midnight of 02.09.2002 for an assured sum of Rs.50 lakhs only against the machines installed inside the factory premises. The complainant also took a Fire & Special Perils Policy of Rs.50 lakhs for the same period. Complainant paid a total amount of Rs.26,250/- towards premium against the said two policies. Her husband namely Kuldip Garg used to look after and control the affairs of the factory but owing to sudden illness of Shri Garg, operation of the factory remained suspended for about 5-6 months. Registered watch and ward staff was deployed. During that time, some unknown hoodlums committed burglary at the factory on 28th August, 2002. The extent of the burglary was so daring that the machines for manufacturing of Ampoules were taken away along with finished goods, furniture etc. by the miscreants by overpowering the two watch and ward staffers. The burglars could not be identified as they were in black masks. However, the claim of the complainant was not settled by the opposite parties on the ground that since the factory was understood to have been closed for 5-6 months when the burglary took place and was uninhabited in violation of the terms of the insurance policy i.e. Clause 8 A of the insurance policy. The State Commission dismissed the complaint by holding that complainant failed to prove with adequate evidence that the burglary took place at her factory premises during the wee hours of 28th August, 2002. The following observations were made by the State Commission:-

(3.) Hence the present appeal.