Briefly stated, complainant’s case before us is that she took a Burglary and House Breaking Insurance (Business Premises) policy being no. 512601/46/07/04/00000098 from the OP insurer in respect of her business shop under the name & style ‘M/s New Gopal Wedding & Steel Furniture’ for the period from 23-08-2007 to 22-08-2008. It is stated by the complainant that on the night of 23-06-2008 an incident of burglary took place in her business premises whereby the miscreants escaped with business articles and accordingly on the next morning she lodged a complaint with local police station. After investigation, the concerned police station submitted final report before the ld. ACJM, Purba Medinipur. The complainant also intimated the matter of burglary to the OP insurer and lodged an insurance claim. Upon receipt of information from the complainant, the OP insurer deputed their surveyor who conducted through investigation into the matter and submitted his report to the OP. However, vide their letter dt. 19-11-2010 the OP insurance company repudiated the claim on the ground that the surveyor could not trace any tampering mark of lock of the shop in question. Consequently, the complainant filed the instant case.
In support of her claim, the complainant filed photocopies of Lawyer’s notice dt. 06-12-2010, Insurance policy schedule, FIR, Final report submitted by the police, letter received from the OP insurer dt. 19-11-2010 etc.
The OP denied truth into all the material averments made by the complainant. The OP alleged that the complainant has merely put forth a stage managed story of burglary for wrongful gain. The OP came out with a case that the inquiry made by the surveyor indicated that on the minute inspection, he did not notice any tampering mark or damage mark of the lock to suggest any forceful entry of outsider into the premises in question with the assertion that there was no forceful entry in the business shop nor things were stolen away by use of criminal force. The OP, thus, contended that there was no irregularity in the repudiation of the claim of the complainant and sought for summary dismissal of the case.
In support of their claim, they submitted the original copy of Surveyor Report, Proposal form for Burglary & House Breaking Insurance submitted by the complainant at the time of taking the policy, one Tax Invoice of S. Akberally & Co., Claim form, Policy schedule, intimation received from the complainant, FIR copy, Final Report copy etc.
Points for consideration
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
Decisions with reasons
Point nos. 1 & 2:
Both the points are taken up jointly for the brevity of discussion.
Admittedly the complainant took an insurance policy being no. 512601/46/07/04/00000098 for the period from 23-08-2007 to 22-08-2008 from the OP to cover the risk coverage of business articles on account of Burglary and House breaking (i.e. theft following an actual, forcible and violent entry or and/or exit from the premises) and cash in safe or strong room and also damage caused to the business premises.
Clinching question is whether the complainant proved that the premises of business shop had been subjected to burglary on the night of 23-06-2008 and during course of such incident his business stock was lost.
It is claimed by the complainant that the alleged incident took place at night. The police, though, submitted final report in respect of the alleged incident, it is an inconclusive report and as such, no reliance can be placed upon the same. From the Final Report submitted by the Nandigram P.S. it is clear that they conducted investigation in the matter in a very casual manner. Surprisingly, the I.O. concerned did not seize the lock in question and sent it to any forensic laboratory to verify whether the same was tampered with or not. On the other hand, from the Surveyor’s report it appears that local people confirmed the incident of theft/burglary as true. There is nothing on record to suggest about the involvement of any insider including the complainant in the alleged incident of burglary. It can hardly be discounted as a mere coincidence that on the fateful night the complainant left his shop unlocked (particularly in view of the fact that the miscreants made another attempt of burglary on the previous night as it appears from the surveyor report) and miscreants got wind of the same and escaped with business articles from the insured shop. While we have not come across any convincing proof to believe the involvement of the complainant and/or any insider in the alleged incident and also taking into consideration the fact that criminals are quite adapt at forcing their entry into a house/shop without leaving apparent proof of tampering/damage, there is strong ground to presume that the miscreants entered the business premises of the complainant on the night of 23-06-2008 and escaped with the valuables therefrom. In our considered view, therefore, effecting an entry into a house at night by breaking or opening the lock by any means without the consent of the owner for committing theft or thereby committing theft in our view must be held to constitute burglary. It is to be noted that the alleged incident though took place on the night of 23-06-2008; the surveyor appointed by the OP visited the spot only on 09-07-2008 i.e. after a gap of more than a fortnight which is sufficient time to lose important clues like tampering mark, if any. It is seen from the report of the surveyor that he assessed the loss suffered by the complainant at Rs. 16,650/- which we accept. Thus, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 16,650/- towards loss of her business articles as assessed by the surveyor.
These points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the CC case no. 10/2012 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OP without cost. The OP is directed to pay Rs. 16,650/- to the complainant against the loss suffered by the complainant to her business material within 45 days from the date of communication of this order i.d. the complainant is at liberty to execute the order in accordance with law in which case, the OP shall have to pay interest @ 10% p.a. over the total awarded amount with effect from this day till full and final settlement.
Dictated and corrected
by me
President
S.S. Ali A.K. Bhattacharyya
Member President
