Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 37 / 2007

1)           Sri Sanjay Kumar Prasad,

61, Dr. Suresh Sankar Road,

1)           United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,

38B, Choeringee Road, Kolkata-71.                       ---------- Opposite Party

Present :  Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

                        Smt. Jhumki Saha, Member.

                        Sri T.K. Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.      2 8       Dated  1 5 / 0 3 / 2 0 1 0 .

Complainant Sanjay Prasad by filing a petition on 5.2.07 u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has prayed for issuing direction upon the o.p. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. for a decree of Rs.36,049/- in terms of the schedule of his claim and litigation cost and any other relief or reliefs as the forum may deem fit and proper.

            Specific case of the complainant is that for the purpose of security of household belongings he made an insurance policy being no.030200/48/05/00517 for the period from 13-45 hours on 19.5.05, mid night of 18.5.06 at a premium of Rs.559/- covering the risk of goods declared by complainant including the risk of house of his premises at Garia. On 24.12.05 he along with his wife had been to the house of his in-laws at Agarpara and he learnt from the neighbourers that a burglary happened at his house by breaking the corner side of the wall and pad lock probably at the mid night of 24.12.05. He immediately informed to the local police station on 25.12.05 and lodged FIR on 26.12.05 along with details list of the property stolen by the miscreants and he also informed by sending letter to the o.p. dt.25.12.05 and the approximate loss of the belonging to the extent of Rs.25000/- including ornaments, utensils, almirah, bed sheet etc. worth of Rs.26049/-. He submitted letter dt.27.106 to the o.p. and FIR, copy of petition of complaint, insurance policy, claim notice served upon the o.p., bills of articles etc.

On the demand of the o.p. he also submitted further information by his letter dt.31.1.06. But instead of complainant’s case being settled, o.p. arbitrarily and unlawfully turned down the complainant’s case and informed him by a letter dt.30.5.06 on the ground of surveyor’s report appointed by the o.p. who gave the opinion that the premises was left unoccupied from the date of inception of the policy. The complainant requested the o.p. to reconsider the repudiation of his claim and to settle his claim in terms of the conditions of the policy, but as they did not comply with the request, complainant has filed this case for unfair trade practice and deficiency of service committed by the o.p.

            O.p. United India Insurance Co. on 4.3.08 filed a petition challenging the maintainability of the case. They have also referred the report of the surveyor after burglary in the house and it has interalia been stated that as the complainant have left the premises inhabited by day and night for seven or more consecutive days, they are not entitled to get any relief because the insured has reasonable responsibility to safeguard his property which has been contained in item no.2 of the general conditions of the insurance. It is only on the basis of getting information from the local people that the complainant could know about the burglary of his belongings from the house which were left uncared for more than seven days and nights. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the complainant and he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

            Main questions need be decided in this case are that whether the complainant is entitled to get a decree for Rs.36049/- as prayed for and whether the complainant is a consumer u/s 2(d)(i) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            Admittedly and evidently the complainant entered into an insurance with the o.p. and the insurance is a contract between the insurer and insured person for the protection and safeguard of the interest of the insured and the insurer undertakes to fulfill certain conditions and insured person is under liability to pay for the same namely premium. In view of this position, the complainant is a consumer as provided u/s 2(d)(i) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            Another question now arises that whether the complainant is entitled to get the decree as prayed for. Admittedly, there was an incident of burglary at the house of the complainant within the period of coverage. The complainant informed about it to the Officer-in-charge of Sonarpur P.S. by letter dt.26.12.05, annex-A, mentioning therein the articles stolen. FIR was lodged on the basis of the written information dt.26.12.05, annex-B. The complainant on the same date also informed about the burglary to the Senior Divisional Manager, stating about all the facts is marked annex-C.

We have also perused another letter given by the complainant to the Senior Divisional Manager dt.27.1.06 wherein he has requested the o.p. for early settlement of his claim amounting to Rs.25,000/-. Insurance company issued a reply with reference to the letters of the complainant asking him for furnishing some information including the detail nature of the construction of the house and the period of his staying at the residence, time and detection of the loss of the properties etc., annex-E. The complainant on 3.3.06 with reference to his letter dt.21.2.06 had also given some information with regard to theft of gold jewelery and some household goods, annex-F and he has calculated the valuation of articles and the total valuation comes to the figure of Rs.26049/-, annex-G. On 26.5.06 the complainant sent another letter. He has informed the o.p. that due to water problem it became difficult for him to stay at his residence at Boral wherefrom the burglary was committed by some unknown persons.

            With reference to the surveyor’s report he has stated that his family members did not reside at the house in question where the burglary was committed, annex-I. We have also perused the insurance policy, annex-K and it appears that the insurance covers the mischief of burglary, house breaking including larceny or theft. We have also perused annex-K-1, where description of different items have been mentioned against the sum insured which comprises of miscellaneous items, jewelery, refrigerator, TV set. So, the total amount of sum insured comes to the figure of Rs.79500/-.

            We have also perused the affidavit of the surveyor wherefrom it appears that the local people reported him that the insured did not stay in the premises and the theft occurred due to absence from the house of the insured. It is surprising to note that the o.p. has tried to make out the repudiation of the claim of the complainant on the ground that at the relevant time the complainant and his family numbers were not present and they were out of the residence for about 7 days and 7 nights. As we have also mentioned that insurance is a contract between the insurer and insured person for the protection of the insured person in that event the absence of the complainant and his family members can be at best treated as a plea in order to repudiate the claim of the insured for the articles which were stolen by way of burglary from the residence of the complainant. So, no question should arise that whether at the relevant time complainant and his wife were residing at the house in question.

It also appears from the electricity bill that the complainant was a regular resident of the house in question wherefrom the burglary was committed during his absence. After admission to an insurance it should not constitute the headache of the insurer that insured resided at his residence or remained absent. The only question which the insurer should consider that whether the insured regularly paid the insurance amount in terms and conditions laid down in the insurance policy.

            The complainant did not conceal the factum of burglary as it is evident from the police report because not only he informed the police and FIR was lodged and on the basis of his FIR investigation was conducted by the concerned police and final report as true also submitted was accepted by the court of competent jurisdiction viz. ACJM Baruipur.

            In view of this position, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant has been able to prove his case and accordingly he is entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

            That the petition complaint is allowed on contest. The o.p. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. is directed to pay Rs.26,049/- (Rupees twenty six thousand forty nine) only for indemnification of his loss due to said burglary and compensation of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only making a grand total of Rs.33049/ (Rupees thirty three thousand forty nine) only positively within forty five days from the date of communication of this order, failing which it will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization. Fees paid are correct.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on payment of prescribed fees.