BOUTIQUE INTERNATIONAL vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant is running the business of manufacturing garments. In the premises of the factory they also store raw material for manufacturing garments. In the insurance policy taken in January 1988 from the respondent, only the raw material finished/semi-finished goods, etc. were shown to have been insured for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Later in June, it is alleged, it was clarified that the insurance covered firstly the stocks of the value of Rs. 6,50,000/- and secondly the machinery of the value of Rs. 3,50,000/-.

IT is further pleaded that on the night intervening 7th and 8th June 1989, theft took place in the factory and a FIR was lodged in Police Station, Noida. The respondent was intimated about the theft on 21st June''89; but inspite of repeated requests they have not settled the claim of the complainant Consequently the present complaint for recovery of Rs. 1,35,000/- on account of the loss suffered by the complainant. The claim was contested by the respondent. They inter-alia, pleaded that the insurance was only for the stocks lying in the factory and not for the machinery. It was after the theft that the insurance was got bifurcated and machinery of the value of Rs. 3,50,000/- was got covered by it. The report was lodged with the respondent after bifurcation of the policy, on 21st June,1989. Thus a fraud has been played on the insurance company.

It is also pleaded that the complaint contains complicated questions of fact and consequently the complainant should be directed to file civil suit for recovery of the amount. The case was fixed for arguments for 21.1.93. On that date a request was made on behalf of the respondent to adjourn the case to 9.3.93 for the arguments. This request was acceded to by the Commission. On 9.2.93 no one appeared on behalf of the respondent and the case was adjourned to 16.2.92 for arguments. On that date the Commission was busy in hearing arguments in a long matter consequently it was adjourned to 16.3.93 for arguments. No one had appeared on behalf of the respondent on 16.2.93. On that date it was also ordered that the parties should give brief arguments in writing on 16.3.93. On 16.3.93 again no one appeared on behalf of the respondent Sh. Chawla, Advocate for the complainant filed written arguments. We have gone through the file carefully perused the pleadings and documents.

THE first question that arises for determination is as to whether the machinery of the complainant''s factory was insured with the respondent. THE policy issued by the respondent related to stocks of the raw material, finished and semi-finished goods etc. Later the policy was bifurcated at the instance of the complainant and it was stated that the stocks of the value of Rs. 6,50,000/- and machinery of the value of Rs. 3,50,000/- were insured with the respondent. THE complainant''s version is that the amendment has been made in view of their letter dated 28.12.88. However, there is no proof on the record given by the complainant that letter was delivered to the respondent before the date of theft. THE complainant filed their claim with the respondent on 21.6.89. THE amendment in the policy was made on 16.6.89. It appears that the complainant wrote to the respondent for bifurcation of the policy after the theft but ante dated the letter. In the circumstances we were of the opinion that the respondent cannot take benefit of bifurcation of the policy. However, they are entitled to be reimbursed regarding the alleged theft of the material. The complainant has alleged that the machinery of the value of Rs. 48,860/- and the stocks of the value of Rs. 57,969/- had been stolen. M/s. Thapar Sriniwasan and Kapur Pvt. Ltd., the surveyor, in their report dated 1.8.91 have assesed the price of the stocks as Rs. 51,737/-. The respondent has raised a dispute that the said stocks were not stolen as the list of stolen stocks was given after 2 days of the lodging of the FIR, to the police. The complainant''s version regarding theft of the tocks cannot be disbelieved. Consequently, we hold that the complainant is entitled to the price of the stocks amounting to Rs. 51,737/- from the respondent.

IT has been pleaded by the respondent that the complaint contains intricate questions of fact and therefore the Civil Court is an appropriate Court to decide such complaint. We do not find any substance therein. We do not think that the complaint contains such intricate questions of fact that the complainant should be directed to get it adjudicated from a civil Court. Consequently we reject the plea of the respondent. The complainant has claimed interest on the amount claimed @18% p.a. In the facts and circumstances of the case we grant interest to the complainant @15% p.a. The complaint should have been decided by the respondent within a period of about two months from the date of lodging the claim. Consequently the complainant is entitled to interest from 21.8.89. For the aforesaid reasons we partly accept the claim of the complainant with costs and direct the respondent to pay an amount of Rs. 51,737/- with interest @ 15% p.a. from 21.8.89 till the date of payment, within three months, failing which action shall be taken against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Costs Rs. 1500/-. Complaint allowed with costs.