In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.203 / 2012.
1) M/s Metal Craft Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
205, Rabindra Sarani (2nd Floor), P.S. Posta Bazar and
1B, Elgin Road, 1st Floor, P.S. Bhawanipore, Kolkata-20. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Its Redg. Office at 3, Middleton Street,
P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-71 and its
Divisional Office XII, 5, Netaji Subhas Road,
1st Floor, P.S. Hare Street, Kolkata-1. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Order No. 8 Dated 11-03-2013.
The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant being convinced and attracted by the representation made by o.p. and its men and agent has obtained a ‘burglary and Housebreaking Policy (Business Premises) being no.102000/46/07/7500001118 (hereinafter referred to as ‘said policy’) from the office of o.p. for a sum of assured of Rs.2,50,00,000/- after making payment of premium of Rs.8427/-. The said policy was valid for a period starting from 31.3.08 to 30.3.09. The said policy insured the stock of metal finished goods, raw materials and materials in work in progress of 5 godowns.
Unfortunately, on 28/29th April, 2008 in between 11-30 and 12.30 in the night an incident of burglary occurred at the said factory premises. Some unknown miscreants forcefully entered into the said factory premises and took away the following articles: (a) six welding machines (Make Weld Man) valued at Rs.4,01,824/-; (b) scrap iron kept for further processing valued at Rs.2,20,000/-.
Complainant reported the incident of burglary to the Domjur P.S. immediately on 29.4.08 and accordingly police registered and FIR being no.Domjur P.S. Case No.125/2008 u/s 461, 379 of IPC. The complainant tried all mits and bounds to recover the stolen goods with the help of the police authority but all his efforts went in vain. Thereafter complainant lodged and registered the burglary claim with o.p. on 16.5.08 for indemnification of loss suffered by complainant in the unfortunate incident for Rs.6,21,824/- which is well covered under the present policy.
O.p. appointed their surveyor Mr. G.C. Sahu of 11, Clive Row, 5th Floor, Kolkata-1 who subsequently visited the factory premises and conducted the survey on 20.5.08. The Complainant received a letter dt.29.7.08 from the surveyor for submission of necessary documents. And without raise any objection the complainant once again submitted all the documents to the surveyor.
Surprisingly the complainant received one more letter dt.27.3.09 from the surveyor on 31.3.09 with a request to submit the same documents once again. Complainant received a letter dt.5.11.09 on 12.11.09 from o.p. intimating that the claim was not tenable under the present terms and condition of the said policy. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
Sole o.p. did not contest this case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex paete against the o.p.
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant obtained a Burglary and Housebreaking Policy (business premises) being no.102000/46/07/7500001118 from o.p. and sum was assured of Rs.2,50,00,000/- and premium was Rs.8427/- for the period from 31.3.08 to 30.3.09 and the policy was covered stock of metal finished goods, raw materials and materials in work in progress of five godowns. Further we find that on 28/29th April, 2008 in between 10-30 and 11-30 in the night burglary occurred in the said factory premises and some unknown miscreants forcefully entered into the said factory and took away six welding machines valued Rs.4,01,824/- and scrap iron kept for further processing valued Rs.2,20,000/-. Complainant lodged FIR with Domjur P.S. Case no.125/08 u/s 461/379 of IPC.
It further appears from the record that complainant lodged and registered a burglary claim from o.p. on 16.5.08 for Rs.6,21,824/- and surveyor visited the place and complainant submitted the documents asked for by surveyor and despite the same complainant received a letter on 27.3.09 to submit some other documents and finally complainant received a letter dt.5.11.09 on 12.11.09 wherein complainant was informed that their claim was not tenable and on the contrary to the policy conditions mentioned in the said letter.
It is an admitted position that complainant was not defaulter at the relevant point of time and FIR was duly lodged and claim was preferred by complainant. The spirit of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India published in CTJ May 2010 Vol-18 No.5 Page 66 that on the ground of breach of policy conditions the insured should not debarred from having justified claim and complainant is entitled to have its claim on non-standard claim basis. In view of the above findings and on perusal of the entire materials on record we hold that the action on the part of o.p. amounts to deficiency in service being service provider to its consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed ex parte with cost against the O.p. is directed to pay 60% of the claim amount i.e. 3,73,094/- (Rupees three lakhs seventy three thousand ninety four) only to the complainant on the basis of non-standard claim and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Complainant is at liberty to file execution case before this Forum in case of non-execution of the aforesaid order in its entirety within the stipulated period under the provision of COPRA, 1986.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
