Judgment : Dt.13.12.2017
Shri S. K. Verma, President
This is a complaint made by M/s Sigma Inc. registered office at 14A Clive Road, Kolkata-700 001, West Bengal, Store House/works address at 1, Sonarpur Road, P.S.-Taratala, Kolkata-700 088 against United India Insurance Company Limited, 38B, Himalaya House, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700 071, OP No.1 and Canara Bank, P.B.No.924, 2, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700 001, OP No.2 praying for an order for Rs.4,00,000/-against the OP along with interest @ 18%p.a. from the date of order till realization and an order of Rs.5,00,000/- for compensation and damages for the harassment caused to the Complainant with interest of !8% p.a. and an order of payment of litigation cost.
Facts in brief are that Complainant is a citizen engaged in business for earning his livelihood on 17.1.2016 his office was closed and theft took place between 16.1.2016 Saturday night to 18.1.2016 Monday morning. In the afternoon of 18.1.2016 when staff of M/S Sigma Inc. went to the Store House at Sonarpur to check the cylinders he found 84 Rotogravure printing steel cylinders were missing. The premises is situated on land belonging to Kolkata Port Trust and this is the only factory currently operating. Other factories are closed. Miscreants removed the padlock of the collapsible gate of the store room which is located t the South West corner of the Store room area of M/s Sigma Inc. broke the wooden door behind it and took out printing steel cylinders. In the afternoon of 18.1.2016 a staff working at a store house reported the matter. Police was informed and FIR was lodged on 20.1.2016 at Tartala P.S. on 31.5.2015. Complainant had applied to the United India Insurance Co. for insurance of stock in trade or goods in the custody of insured and a policy under policy No.0301001215PI02173049 which is valid till midnight of 30.5.2016 for a sum of Rs.1,20,00,000/-. On 29.1.2016 M/s Sigma Inc. intimated United India Insurance Co that on 16/17th January, 2016 when the factory was closed, some unknown persons broke open the lock and stole goods worth Rs.4,00,00/- from the said godown. On 5.2.2016 there was a quotation from supplier for making one/per colour cylinder from Graphico Print at a cost of Rs.4,000/- - 5,000/-. On 5.4.2016 Sigma Inc. on their letter head intimated to M.S.Saha & Associates, Kolkata about submission of documents in respect of burglary claimed to the surveyor. On same day, United India Insurance had issued claim from to be filled up by the partner of M/s Sigma Inc. on 23.5.2016. United India Insurance issued a letter intimating Sigma Inc. that according to Surveyor’s report as well as FIR Report, they agreed to the loss of 84 printing steel cylinders but that does not come under the purview of their policy as their burglary policy concerns only stock of polythene, polystyrenes, ink, adhesives, solvents and other allied items, Raw material and finished goods and not cylinders. On 15.6.2016 Sigma Inc. wrote a letter to the Div. Manager of United India Insurance intimating that stolen steel cylinders come under the purview of other general goods. Again on 16.6.2016, United India Insurance repudiated the claim stating that the alleged loss of cylinders is an asset and it does not come under stock. Complainant further submits that on receipt of that letter of OP No.1, Complainant handed over the same to his Ld. Advocate, who wrote a letter to OP. But, OP did not oblige Complainant of his demand. So, Complainant filed this case.
OP No.1United India Insurance Co. filed written version and denied the allegations of the complaint. Further, this OP has submitted that as per the surveyor report dt.30.4.2016, printing steel cylinders which are used as blocks/ dice in the shape of thick pipe for printing are neither stock of Raw Material nor finished goods but are assets and so the competent authority repudiated the claim of the Complainant. Further, it is stated that stock of Raw Material, working progress and finished goods have been insured under the subject policy. Further, it is stated that assessment of the Surveyor about the loss of items is mandatory as per IRDA regulations but that is not sacrosanct with the admission of the liability under the policy and so OP is not liable for paying the demand of Complainant and complaint requires to be dismissed.
OP No.2 has filed separate written version and has stated tht Complainant is enjoying a commercial credit facility from the OP No.2, Bank. OP No.2 is not vicariously liable or responsible for any action or acts of OP No.1. OP No.2 has further stated that Complainant failed to make out any prima facie case and so the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which OP No.2 did not file questionnaire. Further, Ld. Advocate filed a petition for treating the written version as affidavit-in-chief. OP No.12 filed questionnaire. To this Complainant did not file affidavit-in-reply. OP No.1 filed evidence. OP No.2 also filed evidence but Complainant did not file questionnaire against the evidence of OPs.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
Complainant has prayed for a direction upon the OP No.1 to pay Rs.4,00,000/- for the loss suffered by it due to commission of theft in the store. In this regard, we have the copy of the formal FIR which reveals that a theft took place of 84 printing steel cylinders. Further, it appears that a copy of Insurance Policy is filed. On perusal of which it is clear that OP United India Insurance Co. had insured the stocks of the store.
There is no dispute that there was no insurance of the theft which was committed. From written version, it is clear that OP No.1 has disputed on the point that policy issued by it covers ‘ On a stock of Polythene, Polyslyrene, ink, adhesives, soslvents and other allied items – Raw materials, WTP and finished goods’. It is also challenged by the OP No.1 that as per the statement of depreciation allowance under Income Tax Act loss of cylinders is an asset and it does not come under stock. There is nothing to establish that stolen cylinders, were part of Raw Materials and those were covered by the Insurance Policy. On perusal of the policy document, it appears that a stock of polythene, polysterene, ink, adhesives, solvents and other allied items – Raw Materials, WTP, & Finished goods were covered under the policy. Further, it appears that a stock in trade or goods in the custody of the insured other general goods were covered under the policy. So, it is clear that the printing steel cylinders were covered under the policy. However, there is no material furnished by the Complainant to establish the price of the cylinders which Complainant paid for purchasing those. There is nothing on record where the alleged stolen cylinders were useful for future or those were used in totality. It was the duty of the Complainant to furnish materials showing the utility of the cylinders. Moreover, no quotation for new cylinders or tax invoice for the stolen cylinders have been furnished.
So, considering the facts and circumstance we are of the opinion that if an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is awarded object of justice would be served.
Hence,
ordered
CC/12/2017 and the same is allowed in part on contest. OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the Complainant within two months of this order. In addition, OP No.1 is directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost within the above period, in default, the total amount of Rs.1,07,000/- shall carry interest @ 10%p.a. from the date of this order till realization.
