DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL, COMMISSION, BHUBANESWAR:
-ooOoo-
C.C.No.293/ 2021
M/S. Future Technologies, SCR-14, Surya Nagar,
Bhubaneswar – 751003, Dist – Khurda, Represented
Through its Proprietor, Sri Piyush Gupta, S/o Late Mahendra Kumar Gupta,
aged about 60 years, At present residing at N-2/160, IRC Village,
Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar – 751015, Dist - Khurda
…. Complainant
-Vrs.-
1. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Head office – 87, M.G. Road,
Fort, Mumbai – 400001.
2. The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
Khurda Branch Office, Ginni Bhawan, 1st Floor, ,
Main road, Khurda- 752055
3. Manager Claims Hub,
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Bhubaneswar Regional Office,
1st Floor, Alok Bharati Tower, Sahid Nagar,
Bhubaneswar- 751007, Dist : Khurda.
… Opp. Parties
For the complainant : Mr. R.K.Pattnaik & Associates (Adv.)
For the O.Ps : Mr. B.R.Mishra & Associates (Adv.)
DATE OF FILING : 14/12/2021
DATE OF ORDER : 27/03/2024
ORDER
K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT
1. This is an application U/s 35 of the C.P.Act, 2019.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is that he had a godown at Gangapada, Khurda. In that godown he was storing high value electrical, electronics and allied items and in order to secure the said goods from burglary/ theft, he has insured the stocks of that godown under burglary insurance for a sum of Rs.68,00,000/-. The said policy was in force from 14/03/2019 to 13/03/2020. Due to cyclone FANI on 03/05/2019, the godown was completely damaged and taking advantage of that, some culprits took away the goods kept in that godown. The complainant filed a complaint before the Cognizance taking court who sent it to police for investigation. He then lodged claim before the insurance company which demanded certain documents and deputed surveyor . The surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.3,18,405/-, But the opinion of the surveyor was that the net loss calculation has been given for academic purpose only and not for indemnification purpose. Be that as it may, the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant under burglary policy. Hence this complaint.
3. On the other hand, the OPs filed written version beyond the statutory period for which the written version was not accepted but they were allowed to contest the case on the basis of materials available on record. It is not out of place to mention that the chief contention of the insurance company was that as there was no mark of violence or forcibly entry into the godown and the loss if any, suffered by the complainant is not covered under the burglary policy.
4 Perused the materials on record. Admittedly, the complainant had a godown at Gangapada. The godown was damaged due to Fany cyclone. It is alleged by the complainant that some unknown culprits took away the goods kept in that godown. There was an investigation by the police in that regard. The police submitted final report U/s 380 & 34 IPC. The offence U/s 380 IPC does not involve violence or forcibly entry. The offence which is committed U/s 380 IPC is theft from dwelling house. A place where goods are stored comes within dwelling house. Therefore, the godown of the complainant comes within the definition of dwelling house. Instead of lodging FIR at police station, the complainant preferred to file a complaint before the court, which sent it for investigation U/s 156 (3) CRPC. In final report also, there is no clear indication of amount of loss suffered by the complainant. The surveyor deputed by the insurance company had estimated the loss to the tune of Rs.3,18,405/-. But it was only for academic purpose and not for indemnification. The surveyor in his report also mentions that if the insurer feels like indemnifying the insured because the address in the policy and the claim location is the same then it may go ahead with a compromise settlement deducting minimum 25% from the net loss calculated amounting to Rs.3,18,405/- subject to police final report. Although the police has submitted the final report U/s 380 & 34 of IPC, but in the final report, it is mentioned that from local inquiry it is revealed that some unknown culprits had broken and open the doors of the godown which was under lock & key and committed theft. Further police found that there was scar marks on the lock of the main gate of the godown. So, from the cumulative analysis from all the materials / documents placed before this Commission, we find that the complainant is entitled to some compensation in the line as indicated by the surveyor in his report. Hence it is ordered.
ORDER
The complaint is allowed in part on contest against the OPs. The OPs are hereby directed to indemnify the complainant to the extent of Rs.2,38,804/- (Rupees two lakhs thirty eight thousands eight hundred four) only. Besides, the OPs are further liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only towards mental agony suffered by the complainant and a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only towards litigation expenses. The order be complied with by the OPs jointly & severally within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of this order, failing which the complainant will be at liberty to execute the order against the OPs in accordance with law.
The order is pronounced on this day the 27th March, 2024 under the seal & signature of the President and Member (W) of the Commission.
(K.C.RATH)
PRESIDENT
Dictated & corrected by me
President
I agree
(S.Tripathy)
Member (W)
Transcribed by Smt. M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno
