SUSHMA SINGH Vs. BANK OF BARODA & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant / petitioner is the proprietor of Nancy Rice Mill. She had taken a loan of Rs.25,00,000/- from respondent No.1 Bank of Baroda, to set up the said Rice Mill. The Mill, according to the complainant was being looked after by her father-in-law, husband and brother-in-law. The father-in-law, husband and brother-in-law were arrested in a murder case and remained in jail from 12.10.2012 to 16.3.2013. A theft allegedly took place in the Mill during the aforesaid period and the machines as well as the stock of rice and raw material is alleged to have been stolen. An FIR with the concerned police station was lodged on 18.3.2013, after the family members of the complainant were released in the murder case. An intimation of the theft was sent to the bank by registered post on 18.3.2013. On the bank supplying a copy of the insurance policy, the complainant allegedly came to know that the stock of goods as well as the machinery had been got insured for the period from 16.8.2012 to 15.8.2013. Thereupon intimation of the theft was sent to the insurer on 19.6.2014. One Mr. D. P. Jairath was appointed by the insurer to investigate the matter but the claim was eventually rejected by the insurer on 30.1.2015, inter-alia on the ground that the rice mill had been left unattended for seven days and nights and therefore, the matter was covered under the Exclusion Clause contained in the insurance policy.

(2.) Being aggrieved, the complainant approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, impleading the insurer as well as the bank as the opposite parties in the complaint. Bank of Baroda did not file any written version before the District Forum but the insurer filed a reply contesting the complaint. It was stated in the written version filed by the insurer that during investigation by the surveyor, all the machinery, except generator was found on the spot. It was also alleged in the written version filed by the insurer that the factory was left uninhabited by the insured since 12.10.2012, thereby attracting Exclusion Clause 8-A of the policy. It was also alleged that all the machinery alleged to have been purchased by the complainant from the loan taken from the bank was not found at the time of investigation by bank employees on 20.6.2011, much before the alleged theft. It was further alleged that since one expeller and one flour mill were found installed at the time of inspection by the surveyor and two rooms meant for stock were found to have been converted into residence and used as such. Clause 8-B of the insurance policy which required any change in the premises or activities increasing the risk of the insurer to be intimated to insurer got attracted. Reliance was placed by the insurer on Exclusion Clause 8-A of the insurance policy which stipulated that the policy shall cease to attach if the premises were left uninhabited by day and night for seven or more consecutive days and nights, unless the consent of the company to the continuance of the insurance was obtained and endorsed on the policy.

(3.) The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant, the insurer as well as the bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of two separate appeals. Vide impugned order dated 22.9.2016, the State Commission allowed the said appeals and consequently dismissed the consumer complaint. Being aggrieved the complainant is before this Commission by way of these two separate revision petitions.