Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs BISWAS MEDICINES

THIS appeal by opposite party is directed against an order dated 23.12.1994 passed by District Forum, Munger in Complaint Case No. 168 of 1994. By the impugned order the District Forum directed opposite party appellant (Branch Manager, National Insurance Company) to pay to the complainant (respondent) a sum of Rs. 6,000/- towards the loss of articles (medicine) removed from his shop and Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries caused to the employee in the shop of the complainant. The District Forum has further directed for payment of Rs. 500/- as cost.

THE complainant filed a complaint petition before the District Forum, Munger, in a printed form claiming Rs. 24,163.02 paise as value of goods lost, Rs. 591.33 paise as mediclaim, Rs. 10,000/- as compensation besides cost. What was his case is not clear from the complaint petition in printed form. THEre is no statement of facts with the complaint petition. THEre is copy of F.I.R. and some other papers annexed to the complaint petition and on the basis of those papers the District Forum has gathered the case of the complainant as stated in the impugned order. As it appears from the record the case of the complainant before the District Forum was that he got the stock of medicines kept in his shop insured with National Insurance Company Ltd., Bari Bazar Branch, Munger for Rs. 50,000/- against fire, burglary and house-breaking for the period 29.6.1993 to 28.6.1994. THE insurance was also with regard to workman compensation liability to the extent of Rs. 2,500/-. On 22.7.1993 at about 8.15 p.m. burglary coupled with assault on the workman of the medicine shop was committed in the shop for which F.I.R. was lodged with the police. Due to burglary he suffered loss of articles including medicines worth Rs. 24,163.02. He had spent money over the treatment of the injured workman also. He preferred his claim before the Insurance Company but the Company did not settle his claim saying that the loss suffered under the circumstances is not covered by the policy. THEn the complaint petition was filed before the District Forum claiming the aforesaid amounts on different counts. The opposite party appellant neither filed written statement nor appeared before the District Forum to contest the case and hence ex parte hearing took place and thereafter the impugned order was passed.

Now it has to be seen if the impugned order is sustainable in law or not ? It was contended on behalf of the appellant that no notice of the case before the District Forum was received by the appellant which goes to show that either no notice was issued or the complainant got the same served bala bala. In the record of the District Forum there is copy of the notice sent to the opposite party appellant. There is also one registration receipt which goes to show that the notice had been sent through registered post. There appears nothing in the record of the District Forum to show that notice sent through registered post had been received back unserved. Under the circumstances, there appears no merit in the above contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant.

FROM the memo of appeal it would appear that the factum of insurance of the medicines etc. kept in the shop of the complainant against burglary, etc. has not been disputed. Moreover, the factum of insurance is also apparent from the insurance policy filed by the complainant before the District Forum. It has also not been disputed in the memo of appeal that the Insurance Company did not entertain the insurance claim preferred by the complainant on the ground that the nature of loss was not covered under the policy. Moreover, this fact is apparent from the letter dated 8.10.1993 sent by the Company to the complainant. The factum of occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. has also not been disputed in the memo of appeal. The copy of the charge-sheet filed by the complainant before the District Forum shows that the police after investigation had charge-sheeted the culprits for the offences under Sections 447, 323 and 379, I.P.C. In para 5 of the memo of appeal it has been admitted that the Insurance Company had appointed Shri N.K. Agrawal, Surveyor, to assess the loss and the Surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs. 3,000/-. FROM the F.I.R. and the charge-sheet it appears that Kaushal Kishore @ Raju Srivastava was the person who had lodged F.I.R. regarding the occurrence in question. The copy of the injury report filed by the complainant shows that the doctor had found several injuries on the person of the employee named Raju Srivastava. In the charge-sheet also there is mention of the injury report and treatment of the injured in the hospital. Photo-copies of three cash-memo receipts dated 22.7.1993, 29.7.1993 and 30.7.1993 regarding purchase of medicines for injured Kaushal Kishore go to show that an amount of Rs. 591.33 paise had been spent over purchase of medicines for the treatment of the injured employee. The above facts go to show that there was an occurrence as alleged in the F.I.R. in which the complainant had sustained some loss and his employee had been injured. Shri Durgesh Nandan Sinha, the proprietor of the complainant firm has sworn an affidavit in support of the case of the complainant. The District Forum has allowed Rs. 6,000/- as insurance claim against the claim of Rs. 24,163.02 paise preferred by the complainant but there is no basis for the same. The District Forum appears to have arbitrarily fixed the insurance claim at Rs. 6,000.00. As mentioned earlier, the appellant has stated in the memo of appeal that the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company had assessed the loss at Rs. 3,000/-. The complainant (respondent) has filed rejoinder (objection) to the memo of appeal. In the said rejoinder the assertion of the appellant that the Surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs. 3,000/- has not been controverted or denied and hence there appears no reason to disbelieve the same. The report of the Surveyor is an annexure to the memo of appeal and the report lends support to the assertion of the appellant to the said effect. In view of this the insurance claim of the appellant is fixed at Rs. 3,000.00 only.

AS mentioned earlier, the insurance was also with regard to workman compensation liability to the extent of Rs. 25,000/-. Since the employee of the complainant had been injured by the culprits in the occurrence, the complainant is entitled to get the amount spent by him on the treatment of his injured employee. AS pointed out earlier, the cash memoes regarding purchase of medicines show that an amount of Rs. 591.33 paise only was spent over purchase of medicines. That being so, the District Forum was not justified in allowing Rs. 10,000.00 as compensation on this count. It is held that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 591.33 paise only from the appellant towards workman compensation liability. The District Forum has allowed Rs. 500.00 as cost. The same does not call for any interference by this Commission. From the above discussions it is apparent that the complainant is entitled to get Rs. 3,000/- (three thousand) as insurance claim, Rs. 591.33 paise towards his workman compensation liability and Rs. 500/- as cost. With the above modifications in the impugned order, this appeal is hereby dismissed.

THERE will be no order as to costs of this appeal. Appeal dismissed with modifications.