1. The Appellant filed the instant Appeal under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), against the Order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh (“State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No. 174/2021, wherein the State Commission dismissed the Complaint. 2. For convenience, the parties in the present matter are being referred to as per position held in the Consumer Complaint. 3. Brief facts of the case, as per the complainant, are that they had obtained an insurance policy covering burglary risk for the year 1995-96, which was renewed for 1996-97. The company was shut down from 17.07.1996 due to labor issues, although the Managing Director, Diwakar Goel, continued daily visits. On 30.08.1996, Shri Goel was informed at around 3:00 AM about the burglary at the factory, where locks were broken, the godown was damaged and property was stolen. He immediately informed police, but the police officer demanded bribe, which Shri Goel refused. As a result, a malicious report was filed against the complainant, alleging that the burglary was fabricated and action under Section 182 IPC was sought. Shri Goel objected to this and filed a complaint, and the Magistrate ordered a reinvestigation into the case, which confirmed occurrence of burglary. The insurer was notified on 30.08.1996, and an inspector, Shri Vineet Kumar, visited the factory. Several rounds of document requests followed, but the surveyor repeatedly delayed the process by asking for additional documents without issuing a report. The complainant initially reported a loss of ₹13,19,720/-, which was increased due to rising excise duties. Despite multiple follow-ups, the insurance claim was not settled, leading to filing of C.C. No. 174/2021. 4. In its reply, the OP insurer denied the allegations made in the complaint and contended that the facts presented were false and that the complaint filed by Ashish Pipe Mills was not maintainable. The factory was not closed due to labor disputes, as alleged, and that the guards, rather than the Managing Director, were responsible for the factory’s security. The guards, however, were absent for several days, thereby invalidating the insurance policy. The OP denied that any burglary, as alleged in the complaint, took place on 29.08.1996. The initial investigation found no evidence of theft. The recommendation for action under Section 182 IPC against the complainant was lawful. Though a reinvestigation was ordered, no conclusion confirming the burglary was reached, and there was no proof of presence of Ganga Das or a Nepali Chowkidar. The OP also alleged that the complainant failed to cooperate with the surveyor, Shri Vineet Kumar, leading to the appointment of Shri Agrawal as an alternative surveyor. Despite letter dated 18.09.1996 requesting information, no response was received from the complainant, resulting in delay. Since the alleged theft could not be substantiated, the insurance claim lacked merit and was found fabricated, with no cause of action to pursue the insurance claim. 5. The learned State Commission vide order dated 19.05.2022 dismissed the complaint with the following observations: “11. The information of loading of such heavy goods in the truck not being known to the Chowkidar of the factory, not telling anything of incident of burglary to the Managing Director of the complainant, giving of intimation by outside person in this regard, not to produce this outside person ever before Surveyor, having seen the incident of burglary by ladies residing in Purshottam Bagh and any other Chowkidar, but from them not producing any person before the Investigating Officer shows that with the motive to obtain Insurance amount a fake incident was created. By the First Investigating Officer incident of theft was completely found to be false. By the second Investigating Officer also no any goods could be recovered. Due to strike of labourers the factory was not under operation, therefore, keeping of several tons of manufactured pipe in the factory there was no any propriety. All these circumstances show that this incident has not occurred, therefore Insurance Company is not liable to pay insurance claim. Accordingly the complaint is liable for dismissal. ORDER 12. The complaint filed is dismissed. The parties will bear cost of the complaint themselves.” 6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the Ld. State Commission, Complainant (Appellant herein) filed this present Appeal no. 431 of 2022 praying: “A. Set aside order dated 19.05.2022 passed by the State Commission in Complaint no. 174/ 2001 titled "Asish Pipe Mill v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd" and a compensation of Rs. 13,44,720/-be awarded to the appellant against the Opposite Party being the amount of claim, as submitted above. B. That interest be also allowed to the appellant against the Opposite Party @ 18% per annum from the date of loss viz.
30.8.1996 till the date of actual payment. C. That a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- be awarded to the appellant against the Opposite Party for damages and undue harassment and mental agony cause by the Opposite Party to the appellant due to non-payment of the claim. D. That a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- be allowed to the appellant against the Opposite Party for filing and pursuing this appellant. E. That any other relief, order or direction this Commission may consider proper in the circumstances of the case be also awarded to the appellant against the Opposite Party.” 7. In the grounds of the instant appeal, the Appellant has mainly contended the following: A. They obtained insurance policy from OP for 1995-1996, which was renewed for 1996-1997, as per bank norms. Loans from SBI and UPFC were tracked and records were audited by SBI and Central Excise Dept. On the night of 29-30.08.1996 burglary occurred and was immediately reported to police and the insurer. FIR was filed on 30.08.1996. But, due to the appellant's refusal to pay a bribe, the police officer falsely claimed the burglary was fabricated, recommending action under Section 182 IPC. However, a reinvestigation was ordered by the Ld. Court, which confirmed the burglary, and this decision was not challenged. B. An FIR was lodged on 30.08.1996, but due to their refusal to pay bribe, police falsely reported the burglary as fabricated and sought action under Section 182 IPC. On their representation to ACJM-III Meerut, reinvestigation was ordered on 29.10.1996 and the case was transferred to Railway Road Police Station, which confirmed burglary. This order was not challenged. C. The OP appointed Vineet Kumar as a surveyor, who visited the site on 30.08.1996, observed broken locks, and confirmed the presence of a truck at the factory on the night of the burglary. However, due to the police taking the guards for interrogation, the surveyor was unable to meet them. OP later assigned M/s Rakesh Agarwal & Associates for further investigation. The appellant provided all necessary documents and facilitated visits. However, when the investigator sought to meet guards nearly a year after the incident, without prior notice, it was impossible to locate them. D. Despite the appellant’s full cooperation in providing all details, the report of M/s Rakesh Agarwal & Associates on 21.02.1998 was vague, biased, and prejudiced. OP neither provided complete copy of investigation report nor filed it before State Commission, concealing critical details like broken locks. The claim was repudiated, and the complaint was dismissed. 8. In his arguments, the learned counsel for complainant reiterated the facts in the complaint and the grounds of appeal. He referred to the Final Report dated 26.03.1997 which supported the claim that the burglary occurred. He relied on the Preliminary Survey Report dated 28.12.1996 of the surveyor and loss assessor Vineet Kumar, wherein he admitted that when he had visited the factory of the complainant on 30.08.1996 he found broken locks and it was revealed that a truck had indeed come at their factory on the night of the incident. He sought that the impugned order dated
19.05.2022 be set aside and Rs.13,44,720/- along with interest be awarded as compensation. 9. In response, the learned counsel for OP reiterated the written submissions and asserted that the OP had appointed surveyors as per law but, the insured did not co-operate and avoided furnishing the requisite information and records. He reiterated that the complainant had made a false claim. He referred to the observations made by the State Commission in Paras 9 and 10 of the impugned order, which concluded that the complainant made a fake claim with motive to claim insurance amount. He thus, prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 10. I have examined the pleadings and associated documents placed on record and rendered thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsels for both the parties. 11. The main issue at this stage is whether a burglary took place in the factory complex of the complainant in the night of 29-30.08.1996 for the complainant to be entitled for the claim? As per the Final Report dated 26.03.1997, theft had taken place on the intervening night of 29-30.8.96 in the factory of the complainant. The stolen goods were not recovered. The complainant claimed that the Managing Director was informed of the burglary at 3:00 AM by one Ganga Das. However, the State Commission noted that Ganga Das was never presented before the Surveyor, raising doubts regarding how he learnt of the burglary, when he arrived at the factory and whether he had access to it at all. The State Commission observed that, although Ganga Das resided near the factory, he was not employed as a Chowkidar, and the actual Chowkidar, reportedly a Nepali citizen, did not inform the Managing Director of the incident. The complainant further relied on the Order dated 15.11.1996 of the 3rd Addl Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut. The learned State Commission considered that acceptance of the final report regarding the theft did not, by itself, establish that a burglary occurred at he said premises, entitling the insured to a claim. Moreover, the Order refers to investigating officer's findings of “theft” rather than “burglary.” Additionally, it is the contention that 35/36 Tons of steel pipes were removed from the premises. In this regard, it is in common knowledge that various types of insurance products are in the market for providing insurance cover on life, health, immoveable properties, crops, goods, stocks etc. It is also in common knowledge that each of these insurance products has its specific scope of cover, duration, terms and conditions as well as inherent safety/ security precautions the insured is liable to ensure so as to be entitled for the claim under the insurance contract. 12. In the present case, if the factory was running, loading and removal of such volume and weight of items involved could not have been possible at night, without large manpower and necessary assistance. Such magnitude of movement could not have occasioned without being noticed. Therefore, in the incident of alleged loss, there is either negligence or involvement of the insiders. The assertions of the complainant in this regard lack credibility and no evidence supporting the same has been submitted. In the absence of clear evidence, the occurrence of a burglary cannot be presumed. 13. Based on the aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered view that the Order of the State Commission dated 19.05.2022 does not warrant the interference of this Commission in appellate jurisdiction. The First Appeal No. 431 of 2022 is, therefore, dismissed. 14. There is no order as to costs. All pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly. |
