ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs KHEMANI ELECTRONICS

THIS is an appeal against the Order of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, by which the Complaint Sled by the present respondent, M/s. Kemani Electronics against the present appellant, M/s. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. was allowed and the liability of the Insurance Co. was fixed at Rs. 52,363/-. The amount of loss was arrived at by the Surveyor, J.L Jain & Co. As the Insurance Co. had not cared to settle the claim of the complainant for more than 20 months, it allowed the Complainant interest at the rate of 12% w.e.f. 12th February, 1990 i.e. After the expiry of three months from the date of cause of action as that period was considered to be good enough for settling the claim. The Insurance Co. is aggrieved of that Order and has filed the present appeal.

THE facts are that the respondent is having a repair shop of electronic goods viz. T.V. sets, V.C.Rs, V.C.Ps. etc in Sector 22, Chandigarh. On the night of 12/13th November, 1989 the shop of the complainant was burgled. On the morning of November 13,1989 when the complainant came to his shop, he found that Bp the lock of his shop had been tampered with. The first thing which he did was to lodge an F.I.R. with the police. The respondent had obtained Insurance Policy from the Insurance Co. which was valid from 5th August, 1989 to 4th August, 1990. The nature of risk covered and description of the amount is as follows: The respondent informed the Insurance Co. about the burglary in his shop and list of items missing/stolen along with an estimated value was also furnished to the respondent. The claim substantially was made for Rs. 86,852/- as price of the goods stolen. Soon thereafter sworn affidavits of those whose goods had been stolen were also sent to the Insurance Co. The Company got the matter investigated through its own agencies. However, months of correspondence and personal meetings with the senior officers and executives of the Insurance Co. failed to get him any amount. On 13th February, 1991 the respondent wrote a registered letter to the Insurance Co. for early settlement and personal interview. This also did not elicit any response from the Insurance Co. On 3rd March, 1991 the respondent wrote another registered letter to the Insurance Co. This, perhaps, forced the Insurance Co. to react after more than a month. Vide letter dated the 9th April, 1991, the Insurance Co. repudiated the claim in the following terms: "...after closely going through the Investigation report of the Investigators, we come to the conclusion that the alleged theft in respect of T.Vs., V.C.Rs and V.C.Ps. is concocted story. We regret that the competent authority has repudiated the above claim..,? On the above facts the respondent-Company filed a complaint before the State Commission claiming Rs. 86,852 with interest at the rate of 20 per cent per annum from the date of filing the claim plus Rs. 1,00,000/- as damages for loss of business and goodwill plus Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for harassment etc.

IT may be mentioned here that the police investigations failed to trace the culprits and on 11th January, 1990 they filed the case "untraced ".

AS noticed earlier the State Commission did not believe the version of the Insurance Company and allowed the claim of the complainant to the extent mentioned in the beginning of this judgment. The contention of the appellant that there was no theft/burglary in the shop of the complainant and that it is a concocted story is to be brushed aside. Immediately when the complainant noticed the lock and shutters of his shop tampered with, he reported the matter to the police. The Order of the State Commission also shows a news item also appeared in the newspaper about the incident. At the behest of the Insurance Co. two Surveyors had earlier surveyed and investigated the claim of the complainant. After having received the reports of the two Surveyors, the Insurance Co. appointed "Strategic Security Consociates,, for investigations who alleged that there was no burglary.

WE entirely agree with the State Commission that there was no good reason for the Insurance Co. to reject the earlier two reports and relying on the third report which was hopelessly belated. At this stage we may also refer the report of J.L. Jain and Co. who has been appointed on 13th November, 1989 to conduct a survey and assess the loss. The observations about the lock and door of the complainant''s shop made by them are as follows:

MR . Satish Kumar, a peon, in Uttam Real Estates entered the office first of all at around 8.55 a.m. and found the main door of the cabin of the insured open. In addition to the lock of the main door being broken open, the latch of the main door was also found to have been tampered with. Photograph Nos. 1 and 2 amply bring out this fact. The door of the cabin had been locked by two locks. The upper latch was tightened with three screws and in the lower was a heavy bolt properly fastened.

THE upper latch was found to have been removed from the door itself by removing the screws as will be apparent from photograph Nos. 3 and 4.

THE lower bolt being heavy and strong was tampered with the help of iron rod (Saria) ½ in Diameter, length 40" weighing 5 Kg. The rod was inserted in between the lock and pressure was put on the door using rod as a handle. Due to the pressure the heavy bolt was curved slightly and the door opened. The lock at the door, however, remained intact. The hole in the cabin door clearly depicts the modus operandi used. The photograph No. 7 shows iron rod used in the operation. The screw latch alongwith the lock and the lock at the main door. The three were taken by police into their possession on 13.11.1989 and the photograph was obtained at the police station." In view of the spot observations, it is futile for the Insurance Company to urge that the shop of the Complainant was not broken open by the culprits. No reliance can be placed upon the report of "Strategic Security Consociates " who submitted its report in November, 1990, i.e. after about one year of the accident. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity with the order passed by the State Commission and as a consequence of which we dismiss the present appeal with costs which we assess at Rs. 1,000/-.