Order No. 15 date: 18-07-2017

Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Present Appeal is directed against the Order dated 16-07-2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, South 24 Parganas in C.C. No. 68/2012.

Case of the Complainant, in short, is that on 30-01-2010 at about 01:00 hrs., some unknown miscreants broke into the house of the Complainant and looted gold ornaments, silver, cash etc. The Complainant immediately lodged a police complaint on the very same day.  Further, due intimation was also given to the OP No. 2.  The Surveyor also caused due enquiry about the incident.  However, the OP No. 1 by a letter dated 20-07-2010 repudiated the claim.  Hence, the complaint.

In its WV the OP No. 1 has stated that after intimation of alleged loss, Surveyor was engaged to enquire into the matter.  During investigation, the Surveyor did not come across any tangible proof of forceful entry into the bed room of the Complainant.  The Surveyor also noticed that business of the Complainant was lastly operational in the year 2007.  The Complainant could not furnish any income tax return after the financial year 2007-2008.  Also, from the stock statements, the Surveyor discovered that the Complainant had disposed of all his stock in September, 2007.  Bank statements of the Complainant also corroborated such fact.  That apart, the Complainant himself in his petition of complaint stated that the burglary had taken place at his bedroom which was beyond the scope of insurance coverage.  In view of so many anomalies, the instant claim was repudiated.

Decision with reasons

The primary issue to be decided, in view of the strident objection raised from the side of the Appellant, is whether the alleged incident of burglary has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 

The Surveyor in his report dated 08-07-2010 stated as under:

“During our visit we inspected the premises and examined the possibility of entry by outsiders in the building which could only be by scaling the wall from outside.  The Insured stated that the miscreants climbed the roof by scaling the outside wall and cut the lock of the roof door with hacksaw blade and he noticed on the floor iron dust, generated during cutting, but during our inspection we could neither trace any such metal dust nor the subject lock, the Insured, however stated that the metal dust might have disappeared during the investigation work carried out by the police and the subject lock was missing after the incident.  The Insured further stated that as a precautionary measure he used to keep the silver bars inside the channel of his cot so that nobody can trace the same but the miscreants by force compelled him to disclose the whereabout of the silver bars and took them away…..….

We requested the Insured to submit the books of accounts along with stock register and the purchase and sales documents but the Insured stated that the same were missing after the incident…..”

On a reference to the FRT/Charge sheet, we find that the Police could not seize anything during investigation.  Although in the FRT, involvement of two persons were suspected, significantly, their involvement into the alleged incident of burglary could not be established by the Police.  

Another important aspect of this case that has caught our imagination is the fact that the Respondent No. 1/Complainant, in his petition of complaint has stated that “on 30-01-2010 at about 01.00 hrs. some unknown miscreants/burglars broke into the house of the Complainant forcibly by cutting the iron lock of the door of the roof by a huxa blade and broke the door of the Complainant’s bed room and put the Complainant on the gun point and snatched the keys of the Almirah forcibly and then looted/burgled away the following Gold Ornaments, Silver, Cash etc…..” Nowhere in the petition of complaint the Respondent No. 1 has made any such claim to the effect that the intruders entered his shop and escaped with his business stock. 

On a thoughtful consideration of the claims and allegations of the parties concerned, we notice several loose ends to the contention of the Respondent No. 1, viz., (1) why the broken lock could not be traced out’ (2) if indeed the Surveyor obtained his signature on some blank papers, why he did not raise the issue with the Insurance Company or Police immediately thereafter; (3) why not a single piece of purchase/sale bill could be furnished before the Surveyor/Insurance Company beyond the years 2004 and 2007, respectively; (4) why no Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss Account was available for the year 2007-2008 onwards. 

On an overall scrutiny of the documents on record we derive at the conclusion that the Respondent No. 1 has miserably failed to furnish any tangible proof to show that his business stock got stolen from the shop itself and not from his bedroom.  That apart, there remains a veil of suspicion as to the running condition of his business.  True, the Respondent No. 1 furnished photocopies of stock statements submitted to the Respondent No. 2.  However, in absence of corroborative documents like purchase/sales bills, concerned ledgers to complement the stock statements,  particularly when there is nothing to show that bank officials physically inspected the business stock of the Respondent No. 1 at regular intervals, veracity of such stock statements cannot be taken at their face value. Also, if the Respondent No. 1 had due wherewithal, he could easily furnish duplicate copies of purchase/sales bills from the parties concerned or necessary affidavit from them to support such contention, thereby discharge the onus of burden of proof.  

On going through the impugned order, we find that somehow the aforesaid crucial aspects escaped the notice of the Ld. District Forum leading to come to an erroneous finding in the matter. The same cannot be upheld therefore.

In the result, the Appeal succeeds.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that FA/901/2014 be and the same is allowed on contest.  The impugned order is hereby set aside.  No order as to costs.