ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. CANDOR BIOTECH LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner - Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the order dated 30.12.2013 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh, (in short 'the State Commission') passed in First Appeal No.456 of 2013.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant took an insurance policy (No.64613) w.e.f. 14.6.2007 to 13.6.2008 and another policy valid from 30.3.2007 to 29.3.2008 covering approximately Rs.3.5 crores, including plant and machinery, stocks, pharmaceutical goods, packing material and other items, as mentioned in the policy, at the unit of the complainant company situated at village Khera, Tehsil Nalagar, District Solan (HP). On the intervening night of 16/17.9.2007, an incident of burglary and theft took place at the factory premises of the complainant which came to light on 17.9.2007 at about 8:40 AM. In the said incident, blister aluminum foils valuing Rs.8.00 lacs and change parts of the machinery valuing Rs.2.00 lacs were found missing. The matter was immediately reported to the SHO Police Station Nalagarh on 17.9.2007 after which F.I.R. No.247 dated 22.9.2007 was registered. During investigation the police arrested four persons and recovered approximately one quintal blister aluminum valuing Rs.50,000.00 from their possession. The information regarding incident of burglary was also given to the opposite party on 17.9.2007 itself but still the opposite party vide its letter dated 30.6.2010 repudiated the claim. The complaint was resisted by the opposite party No.1 in its written reply although it did not dispute that the policies in question were issued to the complainant. However, it has been averred that at the time of incident, Mr. Gulab Singh, Security Guard was on duty and the whole exercise of theft took place with his connivance. It has been denied that it was an incident of forcible entry and burglary. It has been pleaded that after following due process, the claim was repudiated being hit by exclusion clause 2 of the policy. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

(3.) District Forum, however dismissed the complaint by its order dated 19.08.2013. Aggrieved with the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred an appeal before the State Commission and the appeal was accepted by the State Commission and complaint allowed. The State Commission ordered the Insurance Company to pay Rs.9.18 lacs to the complainant as settlement of insurance claim.