DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:

                                                   -ooOoo-

C.D.CASE NO. 402/ 2016

M/s Darubrahma Stone Product,

Through its Proprietor of Bijay Kumar Mohanty,

At/PO – Dadhimachhagadia, Dist – Khurda - 752056

                                                                             ….     Complainant

                        -Vrs.-

1. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Unit No.401, 4^th Floor, Sangram Complex,

127, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (E), Mumabi – 400059

Through its Managing Director.

2. Universal Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd.,

Bhubaneswar Branch, At – House No.461, 2^nd Floor,

Gugnani Heights, Lewis Road, Goutam Nagar,

Bhubaneswar – 751014, through its Branch Manager

                                                                             …      Opp. Parties

For the complainant      :         Sri K.C.Prusty  (Adv.)

For the O.P.1                 :         Mr. R.N.Pal & Associates  (Adv.)

DATE OF FILING         :         26/10/2016

DATE OF ORDER        :         26/10//2022

ORDER

K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT

1.       This is an application U/s 12 of the C.P.Act, 1986.

2.       The complainant’s case in brief is that, he had a crusher unit in the name & style M/s Darubrahma Stone Product at Dadhimachhagadia  in the district Khurda. He had insured the said Unit with Sompo General Insurance Company Ltd., who are the OPs  in this  case. The insurance policy was valid from 27/2/2016 to 26/02/017. In the midnight between 28/2/2016 and 29/2/2016, theft was committed in the said Crusher Unit of the complainant. As alleged, 350 cm. of chips were stolen, wroth of which was around Rs.5,81,400/-.  He laid his claim before the insurance company and also lodged FIR at the concerned police station. But the insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that the claim of the complainant was not within the terms & conditions of the insurance policy. Hence this complaint.

3.       On the other hand, the  OPs   filed their written version denying the averments made in the complaint petition. The main contention of the OPs is that, the complaint is not maintainable within the purview of the terms & conditions of the insurance company. The OPs repudiated the claim of the complainant on the following grounds that, (1) there was no sign of forcible or violent entry into the crusher unit of the complainant,  (2) there was no stock register of the crusher unit, (3) FIR was lodged at a belated stage, (4) the electric consumption of the Crusher Unit ten  months prior to the date of theft shows that,  the complainant was paying minimum electricity charges. Hence it is submitted by the OPs that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

4        Perused the materials on record.  The complainant had lodged the claim before the OPs after two days of the alleged occurrence. The OPs deputed their surveyor to the spot, the survey data-sheet shows that there was no violent entry into the crusher unit of the complainant. There was no watchman, there was no stock at the time of the survey. Survey data-sheet has also been signed by the complainant. Besides this, the complainant had lodged FIR at the concerned police station,   although at a belated stage. Police has investigated into the case and submitted final form    stating therein that the case is true but there is no clue. The final form submitted by the police shows that 50-60 cm of chips have been stolen  from the crusher unit of the complainant. On conjoint reading of all the materials on record, it may be  concluded that although there was no forcible or violent entry into the crusher unit of the complainant, but there is prima-facie evidence by way of police investigation to show that there was theft from the crusher unit of the complainant.  The policy conditions show  that the insurance company  would be liable for the insured amount only when there is forcible or violent entry into the premises / unit in question. However, when theft took place  without  forcible and violent entry into the premises / unit, the insurance company is liable up to 5% of the limits of liability subject to a limit of Rs.10,000/- only. In view of such terms & conditions in the insurance policy, the OPs stand liable to compensate the complainant as per the aforesaid insurance policy condition. Therefore, the complaint bears some merit.  Hence it is ordered.

ORDER

The complaint is hereby allowed on contest against the OPs.   The OPs are  jointly & severally  liable to compensate the complainant to the extent of Rs.10,000/-  (Rupees  ten thousand) only,  along with 9% interest per annum from the date of filing of the case till the date of actual payment. The OPs  are further liable   to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/-   (Rupees  ten thousand) only,  to the complainant towards  compensation  for mental agony suffered by  him and a further sum of Rs.5000/-  (Rupees five thousand) only towards litigation expenses.  The order be complied with by the OPs   within 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  26^th October,  2022  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