| Final Order / Judgement | Before, State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar, Patna Appeal No. 08 of 2019 Raj Kishore Prasad, Proprietor, Pan Masala and General Goods Shop, Nimtala, PS- Kotwali, District- Munger ............... Appellant Versus - The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Rajbali Road Branch, Munger
- The Divional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Medh Mothar, Shiv Shankar Sahay Path, PO and District- Bhagalpur.
- Chief Regional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, Regional Office, Exhibition Road, Patna-1
........... Respondents Counsel for the appellant: Adv. Harish Kumar & Abhishek Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent- Adv. Sumit Kumar Before: Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member) Mr. Raj Kumar Pandey (Member) Dated: 21.08.2023 Miss Gita Verma (Judicial Member) Order - This appeal by complainant directed against the order dated 11.09.2018 of dismissal of complaint case no. 34 of 2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Munger.
- The case of the complainant, in short, is that he runs a shop of pan masala and general goods at Mohalla Nimtala within Kotwali PS of Munger town in the name and style “ Pan Masala & General Goods shop” in a rented small room owned by Maheshwar Yadav. He had taken an insurance policy of Rs. 5,00,000/- from respondent no. 1 for protection against theft etc of goods kept in that shop under policy no. 332404/48/2014/342 which was valid from 31.10.2013 to the midnight of 30.10.2014 (annexure-1). His further case is that on the night of 23/24.12.2013 a theft was committed in his shop by breaking it open and goods worth Rs. 4,00,000/- including some cash and papers regarding stock and purchase of goods were stolen. He lodged FIR which was registered as Munger Kotwali PS case no. 450 of 2013 (annexure-2) and gave information of theft to respondent no. 2 also (annexure-6). On completion of investigation the I.O of that case submitted final form as –“ case true but no clue” (annexure-3) which was accepted by court concerned after hearing the informant. The respondents did not give to him forms for making claim of compensation despite his repeated request. Then he filed his claim of Rs. 4,00,000/- on plain paper (annexure-5) in the office of respondent no. 2 on 01.06.2014. Respondent no. 2 sent a surveyor to make on the spot enquiry and report about the correctness of the claim and quantum of loss. The surveyor reported that it was simply an attempt of theft. In fact nothing had been stolen from the shop of complainant and the claim was totally false. On considering the surveyor’s report (annexure-1 of respondents) respondent no. 2 rejected the claim of complainant. Then he filed the complaint before consumer protection Forum, Munger alleging therein that respondent no. 2 had wrongly rejected his claim and there was deficiency in service on his part as well as on the part of respondent nos. 2 and 3. So, he should be held entitled to get the claim from respondents and they should be ordered to pay the claim amount to him.
- The respondents appeared before the District Forum and filed a written statement denying the claim. They have stated therein interalia that on getting information of theft they immediately appointed a surveyor who went to the spot on the same day with respondent no. 1 and made necessary inquiry. The claim of complainant was found false and fabricated. So, on the basis of surveyor’s report and according to the terms and conditions of the policy they rejected the claim.
- The District Forum heard both parties and perused all the papers filed by them including the Xerox copy of police case diary and surveyor’s report. It came to the conclusion that the surveyor’s report was correct. In fact it was a case of only attempt to commit theft and nothing had been stolen from the shop of complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of respondents. The claim was false and fabricated. Accordingly, The District Forum dismissed the complaint.
- Being aggrieved by the dismissal order the complainant has come up in this appeal.
- Heard both parties through their learned lawyers perused the impugned order and the record. It was submitted on behalf of the appellant that the police had found on investigation that the occurrence of theft was true but it could not locate the culprits. So, it submitted final report as occurrence true but no clue. That final report was accepted by court also. So, the respondent ought to have paid the claim amount to the complainant. Non-payment of the claim amount in such case is deficiency in service on the part of respondent. So, the impugned order is liable to be reversed by allowing the appeal.
- It was submitted on behalfof respondent that their surveyor has reported as under:
“Same day I along with Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance company, Munger visited the concerned shop and we found that all goods along with cash box were safe and intact. We took the necessary photographs in this regard from all sides inner view of the shop. Few neighbours of the shop named Raj Kumar Paswan, S/o Jawahar Paswan, Pritam, S/o Subhash Paswan, Chhotan Paswan, S/o Asharfi Paswan & Kare Lal Paswan, S/o Ramavtar Paswan were present there, who also found almost all goods were safe/intact along with cash box who also confirmed genuiness.Then we asked the shopkeeper to produce his stock register, sale and purchase register, purchase voucher and receipt as soon as earliest. But, he could not produce any documents till today. Hence, I found that the claim is fake and bogus, this concludes my report which is issued without prejudice.” It has further been submitted that the surveyor has also mentioned in his report that the concerned shop is situated on main market area of Munger town. The shop is newly constructed with W/B cemented wall 10 inches thick and roof R.C.C. The door of the shop was wooden and it was locked with four numbers of big locks supported with 20 mm iron rod which was not affected but wooden door was broken through its lower side. Hence the miscreants could not succeed to steal any goods or cash. Further it has been submitted that the insurance company is bound by its own rules and regulations. It is also bound by the terms and conditions of the policy. The insurance company cannot allow the claim on the basis of police report. It can allow the claim on the basis of the report of its surveyor only and that also only to extent of the actual loss sustained by the policy holder. In the present case the surveyor has found that it was at best a case of attempt of theft. Nothing had been stolen from the shop of complainant. No details of the alleged stolen property has been given by the complainant either before the police or before the surveyor. The claim is false and bogus according to the surveyor. Under such circumstances, how can the insurance company allow the claim. Lastly it has been submitted that the police investigation was perfunctory and cryptic. It will be obvious on reading the description of place of occurrence given in the case diary, vis-à-vis. The report of surveyor. So, the claim before insurance company can not be disposed of on the basis of it. Therefore, there is no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it may be dismissed. - Considering the arguments of both parties we find and hold that the respondents have not committed any wrong in rejecting the claim of complainant. The impugned order does not call for any interference by us. The appeal is devoid of any merit. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed on contest. Parties to bear their own costs.
Mr. Raj Kumar Pandey Miss Gita Verma (Member) (Judicial Member) Md. Fariduzzama | |
