KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM APPEAL NO:932/04 JUDGMENT DATED:30..11..2007 PRESENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN -- MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., -- APPELLANT Changanacherry. (By Adv.V.K.Anilkumar) Vs. C.K.Vasu, Edayappara (H) -- RESPONDENT Kangazha.P.O. Panthanadu. (By Adv. V.R.Anitha) JUDGMENT SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN:JUDICIAL MEMBER The above appeal is preferred from the order dated:18..8..2004 in OP:42/04 on the file of the CDRF, Kottayam. The complaint in the said OP:42/04 was filed by the respondent as complainant against the appellant as opposite party claiming the insurance claim, compensation on the ground of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in honouring the insurance claim with respect to the policy of burglary. The opposite party repudiated the insurance claim on the ground that the insured failed to take necessary precautionary steps for safeguarding the insured premises and the insured goods. But the lower forum on an appreciation of the evidence adduced from either side came to the conclusion that there occurred deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and thereby directed the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.38,156/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation till the date of payment and cost of Rs.1000/-. Aggrieved by the said order the present appeal is preferred. 2. We heard the counsel for the appellant/opposite party and respondent/complainant. The learned counsel for the appellant argued the case on the basis of the grounds urged in the appeal memorandum. He relied on Ext.B1 policy and B2 report submitted by the Surveyor and loss assessor and submitted that there occurred failure on the part of the complainant/insured in safeguarding the insured premises and the insured articles. Thus, the appellant requested for setting aside the impugned order passed by the lower forum in OP:42/04. 3. On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/complainant supported the findings and conclusions of the lower forum. He also relied on Ext.A2 final report submitted by the police in crime No:64/03 of the Karukachal police station. Thus, the respondent/ complainant requested for dismissal of the present appeal. 4. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Is there occurred any deficiency of service on the part of the appellant/opposite party in honouring the insurance claim made by the complainant/respondent? 2. Is there any sustainable ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower forum? 5. POINTS 1 AND 2 We will refer the parties to this appeal according to their status in the lower forum in OP:42/04. 6. There is no dispute that the complainant insured his goods in the rubber business stored in the premises shown in the policy of insurance. The policy was taken against burglary. There is also no dispute that on the night of 7..3..2002 the rubber sheets kept in the insured premises were stolen by breaking open the back door of the building wherein the insured articles were kept. The only contention taken by the opposite party/insurer is that the insured neglected or failed to take necessary precautionary steps for safeguarding the insured premises and the insured articles. Ext.B2 survey report with the sketch of the premises would give an indication that there was forcible entry to the premises by breaking open the back outer door of that building wherein the insured goods were stored. Ext.A2 final report submitted by the police would establish the fact that burglary was committed by using force. There can be no doubt about the fact that the burglary was committed by forcible entry through the back outer door of the premises. The mere fact that the insured omitted to close the interior door cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the insured failed to take necessary precautionary steps for safeguarding the insured premises or insured goods. Ext.A4 photograph produced from the side of the complainant would make it clear that force was applied on the outer door situated on back side of that building, for making forcible entry to the premises. There is nothing on record to substantiate the case of the appellant/opposite party/insurance company that the insured failed to take necessary steps to safeguard the insured premises and insured articles. It is to be noted that the appellant/opposite party/insurance company has not alleged any fraud or collusion on the part of the complainant/insured in the matter of committing burglary or theft. So the appellant/opposite party cannot be justified in repudiating the insurance claim made by the complainant/insured. It was incumbent upon the insurance company to honour the insurance claim because of the fact that there was a valid policy of insurance against burglary and house breaking. If that be so, the lower forum is fully justified in ordering to pay the insurance amount with interest and cost. The amount awarded by the lower forum can only be treated as very reasonable and fair. The impugned order passed by the lower forum is well reasoned and well founded. We do not find any sufficient reason or ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the lower forum. These points are answered accordingly. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the lower forum is confirmed with a slight modification that the interests at the rate of 15% will accuse only after the lapse of 45 days from the date of this appellate judgment that is, from this date (30..11..2007). In the circumstances there will be no order as to costs as far as the present appeal is concerned. SRI.M.V.VISWANATHAN -- JUDICIAL MEMBER SMT.VALSALA SARNGADHARAN -- MEMBER SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR -- MEMBER S/L
| 
