Smt. Syeda Shahnur Ali, Member(L)

Corrected by Sri Kamal De, President

           The instant case relates to a claim of compensation of the complainant/ Petitioner for accidental damage in respect of his shop situated at Vill.- Khajurari under P.O. and P.S.-Bhagwanpur, Dist.- Purba Medinipur, where he is running a business of processing and finishing of rejected human hair. It is also the case of the complainant that the OP issued the Policy Certificate being policy no. 2913/50566454/01/BOO, Claim no.- CL14014659, Policy type-Renewal Business, Branch name- Illaspur. Unfortunately, theft was committed in the said shop on 21.03.2014 at night and the complainant informed the incident to the Insurance Co. The complainant also informed the fact to the police on 22.03.2014 but the police instantly refused to diarise the fact. The complainant again informed the fact to the police on 03.04.2014 and GD no. 379 was entered by the Bhagwanpur P.S.

          The Insurance Co. surveyed and on 21/01/2015 refused to pay the claim of the complainant.

          Hence this case.  

          The Opposite Parties entered into appearance and contested the case by filling their W/V as well as WNA.

          In filing W/V and WNA the OP no. 1 & 2 stated that in the insurance policy it is found that the location of the insured premises is shown at village Khajurari, P.O. & P.S.-Bhagawanpur under Dist.-Purba Medinipur. But on inspection it is found that the place of burglary was at Bar Bhagawanpur Bus stand of Village - Pajankul, under P.S.-Bhagawanpur, which is a rental premises and it is at a distance of 1 K.M. from the address mentioned on the insurance policy. The OP 1 & 2 also state that the FIR also bears the address of Village-Pajankul at Bar Bhagawanpur, Dist.-Purba Medinipur, and the said place is not covered under the Burglary policy being no. 2913/505664454/04/B00 issued by the OP nos. 1 & 2. Hence, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the claim.

Decision with reasons

          The point for decision is whether the complainant is entitled to get claim as prayed for?

          It is worthy to point out at the outset that the complainant took loan from the OP no. 3, i.e. Allahabad Bank, which the complainant did not repay in full till date.

          We have gone through all documents filed by the parties and other materials on record. From Annexure “N” i.e. burglary claim form we find that under the caption “A. INSURED”, the name and address of the complainant is given as Village-Khajurari, P.O. and P.S.-Bhagawanpur, whereas under the caption of “B.DETAILS OF LOSS”, the address is given as at Bar Bhagawanpur Bus stand of Village-Pajankul, P.S.-Bhagawanpur. The Survey Report also specifies that theft took place at Bar Bhagawanpur Bus stand of Village -Pajankul, P.S.-Bhagawanpur. The FIR dated 17.05.2014 made by the complainant also states that theft took place at Bar Bhagawanpur Bus stand of Village-Pajankul, P.S.-Bhagawanpur, but nowhere in the petition of complaint did the complainant utter where the theft took place.

          The Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OPs argued that they were not informed of change of address by the complainant before the incident nor even by the Bank. It is only long long after the incident, Bank wrote a letter to the OP no.1 and 2 (Insurance Co.) about the alleged incident, at the instance of the complainant. The OP Insurance Company by a letter dated 1/04/2015, addressed to the complainant, shows that the complainant made a delay of 87 days to inform the case of theft. The OP Bank vide letter dated 11.08.2014 informed the OP Insurance Company that the complainant was doing business at Bar Bhagawanpur Bus stand of Village-Pajankul, P.S.-Bhagawanpur, and that too, much later after the date of incident.

          From the insurance policy we find that the location of the insured premises is shown at Vill. Khajuri, P.O. Bhagwnapur, Purba Medinipur, West Bengal, but on inspection the place of alleged burglary is discovered at Bar Bhagawanpur Bus Stand, Village–Pajankul, P.O. & P.S.– Bhagawanpur, Dist. – Purba Medinipur. So, it appears that the address of the location of the insured premises as per policy documents is at Vill- Khajuri, P.O. – Bhagawanpur, Purba Medinipur whereas place of occurrence is at Bar Bhagwanpur Bus Stand of Vill. Panjkul, P.O. & P.S.–Bhagawanpur, Purba Medinipur being the rental premises of the insured and which is at 1 K.M. away of from the insured’s premises and which is also used by the insured as residence and there was no intimation of change of business premises to the Insurance Company.

          We also find that the place of burglary as mentioned in the F.I.R. is Bhagwanpur Bus Stand of Vill. Panjkul which is a separate business place and the aforesaid place is not covered under the Burglary Policy being No. 2913/505664454/04/B00 containing different place location as insured premises.  

          To sum up, the fact remains that the venue of committal of theft varies from the address as incorporated in insurance policy. It is the case of the complainant that the policy was renewed subsequently but we are afraid no renewal policy is forth coming before the Forum. The OPs, however, admitted about such renewal. Be that as it may, it appears that the policy was valid for the period 12/02/2013 to 11/02/2014 and it expired on 11/02/2014 and subsequently, the complainant renewed the policy on the exact date of alleged loss i.e. on 21/03/2014. It is also appearing from the record that the complainant intimated the fact of theft to Insurance Company about a lapse of 87 days without any satisfactory explanation of delay. The F.I.R., as we find, was lodged on 17//05/2014 being Bhagwanpur P.s. case no. 60/14 dtd. 17/05/2014u/s 461/379 of I.P.C. We are afraid no copy of G.D. entry dtd. 03/04/02014, as alleged, is forthcoming before the Forum. The F.I.R., as we find, was also initiated after long long lapse of alleged theft and no reason is forthcoming as to the delay in lodging the F.I.R. The case of the complainant looses its credibility. The complainant was under obligation to intimate Insurance Co. about change of place of business and to get necessary endorsement on Policy. So, we think it is violation of conditions of Policy (I 2015 CPJ1 N.C. referred to).

          On all such score and counts, we are constrained to hold that the complainant has failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt and such claim cannot sustain accordingly.

          Hence, it is,

ORDERED

         That the complaint case being no. CC/26/2015 be and the same is dismissed on contest. We make no order as to cost.