AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
BY this complaint, the complainant has claimed dam ages for the loss suffered by the complainant amounting to Rs. 1,16,400/- on account of burglary and also damages to the tune of Rs. 50.000/- on account of mental agony, undue harassment and un-co-operative attitude of the opposite party and also interest @ 18% per annum from 24th July, 1992 till the amount is paid to him alongwith costs.
THE brief relevant facts set-up by the complainant are that the complainant is a Private Limited Company engaged in the manufacture of R.C.C. Pipes, P.C.C. Poles and other concrete products and located at Bata Mandi, Teh. Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. and that the complainant vide Insurance Cover bearing No. 23242/BP/93/00039 valid from 12.6.1992 to 11.6.1993, had insured its stocks of cement bags, steel wire, cement poles, cement pipes, finished/semi-finished C.I. flanges, C.I. Castings and accessories and machinery used for concrete works for a sum of Rs. 8 lakhs and the complainant had also paid a sum of Rs. 1,900/- as premium. According to the complainant, during the period when the insurance policy was in force a burglary took place in the factory premises on 24.7.1992 and it was detected by one Shri Bal Giri Gugwad, Manager and considerable loss was suffered by the complainant in respect of certain items which have been given in Para 6 of the complaint. Shri Bal Giri, Manager, who detected the burglary in the factory premises reported the loss for a sum of Rs. 1,16,400/- and F.I.R. was also lodged with the police and claim was also preferred with the Insurance Company.
However, the claim of the complainant has been repudiated by the Insurance Company arbitrarily and the complainant had been forced to file the present complaint.
THE allegations of the complainant had been repudiated by the Insurance Company and according to them no burglary or theft was committed of the insured goods and in the specified premises of the factory and the complainant has coined a false story and lodged a false F.I.R. in the police in order to get a claim wrongfully from the Insurance Company. Furthermore, the insurance policy came into force only on 12.6.1992 and it did not cover the loss alleged to have been suffered by the complainant as according to the respondent-Insurance Company, the policy was not in force at the relevant time. Condition No. 1 of the insurance policy which defines "House breaking or burglary" is relevant and may be reproduced below : (a) Theft of property from the premises described in the Schedule to this policy following upon felonious entry of the said premises by violent forcible means, or (b) Theft by a person in the premises who subsequently breaks out by violent and forcible means.
MISS Jyotsna Rewal, learned Counsel for the complainant has strongly contended that the risk of burglary is squarely covered under the terms of the insurance policy which is evident from the evidence produced in the form of affidavits by the complainant. According to her various stolen articles weighing as much as 110 kgs. or so could not have been stolen from the premises without the use of force. We have considered such submissions and perused the record and in our opinion there is no force in such submissions. One Mrs. Subodh Abbhi, Managing Director of the complainant has filed an affidavit dated 9.9.1993 and in paragraph 2 he has stated that the cement bags and other small articles were kept in store room. The R.C.C. Cement pipes, finished/semi finished, flanges, castings and machinery were kept in the premises of the factory in vacant space, which is fenced. Such articles could not be kept in store rooms.
IN paragraph 3 of the affidavit it has been shown that the weight of each piece of missing article (mould) varies from 40 kgs. to 110 kgs. etc. This affidavit is also supported by an affidavit on one Shri Balgiri Kenchappa Gugwad, the Manager of the Company. According to him various articles were stolen and he has lodged the F.I.R. with the police.
NO doubt, it has been tried to be shown by the learned Counsel that various moulds weighing 110 kgs. could not have been stolen from the premises without the use of force and without felonious entry of the said premises by violent forcible means. Such submission cannot be accepted as there is not even an iota of evidence in the affidavits that any theft had taken place following upon felonious entry of the said premises by violent forcible means. On the other hand, we find in the affidavit that the cement bags and other small articles were kept in store room. The R.C.C. Cement pipes, finished/semi finished C.I. flanges, castings and machinery were kept in the premises of the factory in vacant space, which is fenced. Such articles could not be kept in store rooms. Since these articles were kept in vacant space which is fenced and there is no evidence to the fact that fencing was broken at certain points, we can safely assume that there has been no felonious entry of the premises by violent forcible means. The case, therefore, is not covered under the definition of ''burglary'' and the case of the complainant is not covered under the terms of the insurance policy and that the Insurance Company is justified in repudiating the claim.
We may notice the another argument of Mr. Mehta, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company that the articles if at all were stolen, these were stolen from the vacant space which is only fenced and these premises are not premises of the factory and on this account, this case is not covered under the contract of the insurance policy. In view of the above findings, it is not necessary to decide this question. There is no force in the complaint and the complaint is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.