ORDER

Date of order: 27-11-2017    

Upendra Jha,Member       

                   The complainant preferred this complaint against the Opposite-parties with a prayer to direct the Opposite-parties- National Insurance Company  to pay the Insurance claim amounting to Rs. 29,00,000/-(Rupees twenty nine lacs only) with 18% interest from the date of loss i.e. 23-03-2012 till the date of final payment, not to take any  co-erosive step till final payment, to pay Rs. 15,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation cost.

2.                The case of the complainant in brief is that after taking a loan of Rs. 27, 50,000/- from Bihar Gramin Bank Samastipur he started a business of wide range computers, printers, spare parts, hardware, software etc. in the name and style of M/S Sai Nath Computers Shop at Gola Road Samastipur which was insured by the Opposite-parties for Rs. 30,00,000/- on 11-10-2011 for  fire and special perils Policy and Burglary. Though he had closed the shop properly on 22-03-2012 but he found on 23-03-2012 that the rear window rod was broken and all goods of the shop was stolen. He lodged F.I.R. vide Samastipur P.S. Case No. 59 of 2012 on 23-03-2012. The loss assessed roughly was for Rs. 29,00,000/. The Bank as well as the Insurance Company was also informed. The Insurance Company deputed a surveyor Mr. Chandra Shekhar Prasad who after inspection of the shop reported the loss. The police also submitted final report which was accepted by the C.J.M. Samastipur stating the incidence true and clueless. The surveyor suggested liability of the Insurance Company for Rs. 14,78,,832/- after deducting “uncovered circumstances”  and “improper  standard” for which the complainant protested. Claim was filed by the complainant with relevant documents but it was repudiated. Then, the complainant has filed this complaint for above prayer.

3.                           Written statement as well as evidence on affidavit and written arguments have been filed by the Opposite-parties and by the complainant. Heard and perused the District Forum order.

4.                           The complainant has submitted evidence on affidavit, the Insurance Policy paper of Rs. 30,00,000/- for the period of 10-10-2011 to 10-10-2012 for  standard fire and peril policy and burglary, copy of F.I.R. dated 23-03-2012 under section 461 of  379 of IPC, written information dated 23-09-2012 given to the Bank, Final report submitted  by the police on 31-07-2012. Form of order sheet of C.J.M. Samastipur up to 02-04-2013 and surveyor report dated 08-07-2013 by which the liability of the  Insurance Company has been shown Rs.14,78,832/-. The complainant has submitted that on the evidence produced by him, the claim of the complainant was to be settled by the Opposite-parties at least for Rs. 14,78,832/- as per surveyor’s report, but it was not settled. This is deficiency on the part of the Insurance Company. He is entitled to get relief as prayer for. Hence, the Opposite-parties be directed for that.

5.                           The Insurance Company has produced evidence on affidavit stating that the theft occurred on 22-03-2012 night but the O.P._Company was intimated on 26-04-2012 and claim form was submitted on 27-12-2012 against the 14 days of the occurrence. The insured had to take all reasonable steps to safeguard the property insured against any loss to prevent accidents but as per surveyor’s report the wooden window was left opened and through this wooden window the theft took place. So, it is a violation of the policy condition No.-3 on this basis the claim was repudiated which is proper and justified. Hence, the complaint is fit to be dismissed.

6.                           Having considered the evidences on affidavit of parties and the written notes of arguments, it is clear that the Computer Shop of the complainant was financed by the Gramin Bank Begusarai and it was insured by the Opposite-parties for Rs. 30,00,000/- for five special Peril Policy including Burglary. During insurance period, a theft was committed in the shop. F.I.R. was lodged, police submitted final report which was accepted by the C.J.M. Samastipur stating that the incidence of theft was true but clueless. The Insurance Company on getting information deputed a surveyor to assess the loss who assessed the loss for Rs.24,90,649/- but after deducting “uncovered circumstances” and “improper standard” the surveyor recommended for payment of Rs. 14,78,832/- only. But, the Insurance Company did not settle the claim mainly on the ground that the wooden window of the shop was opened as reported by the surveyor. On perusal of the surveyor report it is found that the surveyor in Para-13.3’ Standard states’-has mentioned that exit to some large items through the gap made at the window for entry appears insufficient to pass some major items  like packed desk tops, laptops etc. by living his panel open. For that lapses the surveyor has deducted 30% as “improper standard” Rs. 6,33,785/- as well as for “uncovered circumstances” as Rs. 3,78,032/- has been deducted. Thus, we find that the complainant has already been penalized for window gap etc. then he should not be penalized again and again for same mistake. The evidences on affidavit submitted by Sri Shiv Shankar Mishra, S/o- Indra Bhushan Mishra, Sri Rajesh Mishra, S/o- Janardan Mishra and of Sri Sujeet Mishra, S/o- Indra Bhushan Mishra in favour of the complainant that the theft was committed in the shop of the complainant by breaking the rod. The wooden window was not opened at the time of theft. Secondly, there is no evidence on affidavit produced by the Insurance Company in its support that the wooden window was opened; hence, a burglary was committed. In Police final report, in F.I.R. there is no such entry that the wooden window of the shop was opened. This allegation has not been proved by the O.Ps. and on this allegation/ objection, repudiation of  entire claimed amount does not seem to be proper. In our opinion, the complainant is entitled to get the insurance amount Rs. 14,78,832/- as per recommendation of the  surveyor deputed by the O.Ps. Hence, the complaint is allowed partly. The Opposite-parties- Insurance Company is directed to pay Rs. 14,78,832/- to the complainant with 6% interest from the date of filing complaint i.e. 31-12-2014 till the date of final payment. The Insurance Company is further directed to pay the compensation Rs.20, 000/- and litigation cost Rs. 5000/-. The entire amount be paid within two months from the receipt of this order failing which 10% interest will be payable.

 7.                          The complaint is partly allowed.

        Renu Sinha                                                          Upendra Jha                                                                      

        Member (F)                                                          Member (M) 

           Anita