BHAI BHAGTU COTTON FACTORY vs National Insurance Company Ltd.

THE complainant approached the state Commission with the allegations that on 17th July, 1991 he withdrew an amount of Rs. 5.00 lakhs from State Bank of Patiala, Jaitu for depositing it in Bank of Goniana for the purposes of encashment of various cheques issued by them in favour of various Commission Agents. THE money, so withdrawn, was sent from Mandi Jaitu to Mandi Goniana through Gurjinder Singh, a partner of the firm. THE complainant No. 2 Gurjit Singh with Rs. 5.00 lakhs reached Goniana in his insured Maruti Car which he parked outside the shop of Bhagwan Singh and locked it. He alongwith his Munim went into the shop of Sant Lal Sham Lal. After issuing some cheques, when Gurjit Singh, complainant came out of the shop of Sant Lal, he found his car missing. After making enquiries in the locality, he reported the matter to the Police Station Nahianwala on the same day and also lodged a claim with the Insurance Company. As the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company, he preferred a complaint for award of Rs. 9,98,000/- with interest.

THE plea set up on behalf of the Insurance Company was that the alleged insured Maruti Car alongwith cash of Rs. 5.00 lakhs was never stolen and the version of the complainant with regard to theft and loss thereby was merely a ruse to raise a fabricated claim against the Insurance Company. After investigating the matter, the State Commission by majority view held that the Insurance Company came to a bona fide conclusion that the claim of the complainant was not tenable and was consequently repudiated. The matter should be adjudicated before a Civil Court where the complainant as well as the Insurance Company would have ample opportunity to examine the witnesses at length and have elaborate trial of the case. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed.

The complainant has assailed the order of the State Commission by filing this appeal.

THE learned Counsel for the appellant contended that the order passed by the State Commission was erroneous and was not in accordance with law. THE repudiation of the claim was made without application of mind and on invalid and dubious grounds. He strongly relied upon the view expressed in the dissenting order. We have considered the matter very carefully and gone through the record. We have examined the view taken by majority as well as the minority. In our opinion, the view taken by the majority is correct and is in accordance with law. Reliance is placed by the State Commission on the report of the Investigator which is reproduced below : "(i) Why firstly cash was not deposited in the State Bank of Patiala, Goniana. The Bank was just near to be Grain Market of Goniana and the insured could have easily deposited the cash in ban before distribution of cheques to his parties. The issue of cheques further proves that the insured wanted evidence to prove his claim. (ii) Why the insured left the car along with cash without making any proper arrangement of security. It is mystery in itself. (iii) No proper search was made by the insured to locate the car after the alleged incident. Conclusion

THAT Goniana is a small Mandi. The grain market is closely knit, all around there are shops while the car was parked in the centre under a shed, everybody in the market could recognise the car of the insured, the paramilitary forces had been deployed in the Mandi, all the ''Nakas'' of the Mandi are guarded by B.S.F./CRPF etc. Since within a short period insured returned, why he had not made hue and cry, why he did not try to locate the car, why the paramilitary forces were not immediately informed. Had the forces been immediately informed ? They would have flashed the wireless message and the car could have been nabbed at the ''Nakas'' itself. Another question arise, if earlier big deposits were made by DD/ Cheques, why the risk of carrying the cash was taken when the insured admits of lawlessness, and had taken the insurance keeping in view the lawlessness only. Further why the cash was carried from Bank at Jaitu to factory and after some time was carried to Goniana. At Goniana even the cash was left in a solitary car, why the cash was not immediately deposited in the Bank, instead the other proceedings were given priority? Reliance is also placed by the State Commission on the report of the police which is in the following terms : "I also made efforts for the search but from the verification of the spot and secret information, it is found that Gurjit Singh has made all this a fraud. By this lodging of report, either he wants to cheat the partners or wants to grab/embezzle these Rs. 5 lacs because B.S.F. has been posted at every point in the Mandi. Enquiries were made from Naik R.N. Mandal of the FSF B.2 Party Incharge and he told that they have not seen any car parked at that place whereas the BSF Company was stationed at 5/10 Karams from the alleged place of parking of car. It clearly shows that Shri Gurjit Singh has played a fraud and want to get the FIR lodged to grab/embezzle the money. All the respectables of the Mandi told secretely that this Gurjit Singh have connections with terrorists and 7/8 months ago terrorists kidnapped Banarsi Dass of the Mandi at his instance and he was released after taking 3,50,000/ -. The matter is doubtful. Action would be taken after bringing the matter into the notices of the high officials and the report was to SSP, Bathinda through W/M regarding this fraud who ordered not to enter FIR".

While relying on the Condition No. 1 of the insurance policy the State Commission observed as under: "the insured shall take all ordinary and reasonable precautions for the safety of money''. The complainants did next to nothing for taking reasonable precautions for the safety of their money and the car and that is why the Insurance Company had in its letter of repudiation stated that the claim was not payable as per terms and conditions of policy".

The State Commission arrived at a correct finding that serious doubt about claim was raised and the Insurance Company came to a bona fide conclusion that the claim of the complainant was not tenable and was consequently repudiated. It is abundantly clear that the findings were arrived at after elaborate analysis of the material placed on the record. We find no legal flaw in the finding arrived at by the State Commission which may call for interference by this Commission. The order passed is perfectly justified in the circumstances of this case. The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed. However, we make no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. _________________