This is a case U/S 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with the prayer for an award directing the O.P. to pay Rs.2,59,067.85 to the petitioner on account of theft of business, Rs.50,000/- for harassment, mental pain and agony, Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost and other relief.

The complainant’s case in short is that the complainant is a partner of Raiganj Marketing Partnership Business carrying on business of distributorship of STD Booth under Reliance Indian Phone and also business of sales of mobile phone and accessories. The said business was duly insured with the O.P. vide insurance policy No.512901/48/09/34/00002018 valid from 24.03.2010 to 23.03.2011. On 13.10.2010 morning when the Manager of the said business firm came to the business place, he saw that some miscreants have broken the shutter gate of the business place on 12.10.2010 night and stolen away some mobile phone sets, cash cards, important papers and cash from the business place, then the Manager informed the incident to the complainant. On 14.10.2010 the complainant lodged a written complaint to the Raiganj PS. On the basis of said complaint the Raiganj PS started Raiganj PS Case No.458/10 dated 14.10.2010. The complainant also intimated the matter of theft-in-question to the O.P. immediate after the occurrence. The complainant submitted relevant documents i.e. FIR, list of theft articles, mobile phone sets

purchased documents, Tax invoice and police final report to the O.P. for getting compensation from the O.P. But the O.P. did not pay any heed to the claim of the complainant. For deficiency in providing service on the part of the O.P. the complainant was forced to file this complaint before this Forum with the prayer mentioned above.

The O.P. contested the case by appearing on the date of hearing and by filing W.V. denying all the allegations made by the complainant and stating inter alia that the complainant has no cause of action, the case is not maintainable, the complainant did not submits relevant documents along with police final report, the O.P. has no deficiency in service and the O.P. submits that the case is liable to be dismissed.

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

We carefully considered the contents of the petition, written version, oral evidence as well as documentary evidence adduced by the complainant and the O.P. and argument advanced by the Ld. Lawyer for the parties. It reveals from the complaint, photocopies of partnership deed, mobile phones and its accessories purchased documents with EMIE numbers, tax invoice, insurance policy, FIR & police final report that the complainant was/is a partner of Raiganj Marketing Business and theft had been occurred at the business place of the complainant and the complainant being the policy holder was/is the consumer and the O.P. being the insurer was/is the service provider as per Act.

In support of the case, the complainant submitted the photocopies of documents mentioned above and letter correspondences by the complainant to the O.P. which reveals that on the basis of the written complaint to the Raiganj PS, the concerned PS started Raiganj PS Case No.458/10 dated 14.10.2010 U/S 461/379IPC and on completion of investigation the concerned PS submitted final police report. The theft-in-question was also intimated to the O.P. by the complainant immediate after the occurrence and submitted all the relevant documents mentioned above to the O.P. for making payment of compensation for loss of business. So, it appears from the documents submitted by the complainant in this case that the complainant has completed his part of contract as a consumer. On the other hand the O.P. has investigated the matter by their engaged investigator and collected documents from the complainant. It appears from the insurance policy that the policy of insurance number mentioned above was issued by the O.P. was a Shopkeeper’s Insurance Policy in which burglary, house breaking etc. were also covered in the said policy and the said policy was also valid on the date of occurrence. After submitting all the relevant documents to the O.P. by the complainant, the O.P. being the service provider on various pretext avoiding to fulfill their contractual liability for making payment of compensation. For such illegal acts of the O.P. the complainant has suffered financial loss, harassment, mental pain and agony.

Considering the materials on record we are of opinion that the complainant is entitled to get an award of Rs.2,59,067/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Sixty Seven) only for loss caused due to theft of business, Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only for harassment, mental pain & Agony and Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only as litigation cost.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is   

                      ordered,

that the complaint case No.93/2013 is allowed on contest in part without cost.

Accordingly the complainant do get an award directing the O.P. to pay sum of Rs.2,59,067/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Nine Thousand Sixty Seven) only for loss caused due to theft, Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) only for harassment, mental pain & Agony, Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand) only as litigation cost, totaling to Rs.2,71,067/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy One Thousand Sixty Seven) only to the complainant within one month from this day failing which the total amount will carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of this complaint till the date of full realization and the complainant will be at liberty to put this order in execution against the O.P. in accordance with law.

Copy of this final order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.