AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 391 wordsTHE present appeal is against order dated 2.1.1996 of the District Forum, Sundargarh-II, Rourkela in C.D. Case No. 15 of 1995.
THE respondent (complainant) lodged F.I.R. about the theft of different stocks from his shop on 9.3.1994 to 10.3.1994 night for which he had a policy with appellant. THE Policy No. 345501/430/M.S./94 was valid from 27.1.1994 to 26.1.1995 the assured amount being Rs. 2,50,000/-. The theft occurred during 9/10.3.1994 night which was within the valid period of policy and no doubt have been raised by the appellant for such theft.
The appellant deputed one preliminary Surveyor and again deputed a final Surveyor M/s. Sanjeev Associates, Bhubaneswar for assessing loss and report. Accordingly, the Surveyor reported that it was true that theft occurred and total loss was more than Rs. four lakhs and he recommended for payment of Rs. 2,50,000/-.
FROM the arguments advanced at the Bar the learned Counsel for the appellant took the plea that the Income Tax Department has shown no profit of the shop and the respondent did not submit genuine vouchers against his stock stolen. We have heard the learned Counsel for the respondent.
WE have gone through all relevant records and orders of Court below. We find that in the present case the appellant did not intentionally want to satisfy the claim with some plea or other which is clear from the correspondences with Income Tax Department and their own different offices. The appellant also did not accept the recommendation of the Surveyor who is the appropriate and independent body to give his opinion about the loss, etc. We also find no infirmity with the order of the Court below.
IN the result, we direct the appellant to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- towards loss as recommended by the Surveyor M/s. Sanjeev and Associates, Bhubaneswar with 12% interest per annum from the date Surveyor finally recommended the loss and Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation. We further observe that the amount of compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- in toto Rs. 20,000/- may be recovered from the defaulting officer of the appellant Company if the Company is satisfied that there has been negligence on the part of any individual officer. Mr. Justice D.M. Patnaik, President-I agree. Mr. Pramodnath Das, Member-I agree. Appeal disposed of.