Surinder Singh, President:
1. The present complaint has been filed by M/s Bhasin Industrial Corpn., which has its Head Office at 4014, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, against two Insurance Companies (i) The United India Insurance Company Ltd., and (ii) The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh.
2. The substance of the allegations in the complaint is that the complainant firm are manufacturers of Voltage Stabilizers (SERVO). For manufacturing this item they use huge quantities of Copper Wire. The complainant enjoys facility of loan/credit from the Bank of India, Sector 17, Chandigarh and by way of security their goods and raw material were hypothecated with the Bank. The machinery and material lying at the premises of the complainant was insured with United India Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 80,000/-. subsequently, a further insurance for Rs. 1.00 lakh was done by New India Assurance Company which covered the stock of copper wire. Two insurance policies are overlapping.
3. On the night intervening 13/14th September, 1984, a theft took place in the premises of the company and when the same was discovered in the morning, it was found that goods worth Rs. 32,000/-, which were covered by the insurance policy, had been stolen. An F.I.R. was lodged with the police under Section 380 IPC. Thereafter a claim was also made to the two Insurance Companies with which there was lengthy correspondence but nothing tangible came out.
The complainant claimed compensation being Rs. 32,000/- on account of loss of goods, Rs. 40,000/- on account of interest and Rs. 1.00 lac as damages.
4. A preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents in that the claim is barred by time. However, the insurance of goods for Rs. 80,000/- and Rs. 1,00,000/- on the basis of two insurance policies is admitted. In regard to the theft, the standof the respondents is that according to their survey, there was no 'forcible entry' into the premises when the theft took place and hence the offence committed did not fall within the definition of burglary of house-breaking. Except for this, technical objection, there is no repudiation about the quantum of relief claimed.
5. First on the question of limitation, in para 7 of the complaint, it is averred that a long and lengthy correspondence has been going on between the complainant and the two respondent Insurance Companies. Copies of some letters issued by M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd., have been placed on record. In the written statement, the objection regarding limitation was raised but in the replication, it is averred that the claim against the Insurance Company is still pending without any repudiation or objection. The Managing Partner of the complainant firm has shown an affidavit to this effect. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, the above contention have not been controverted. The question of limitation does not, therefore, arise and the objection on that score is overruled.
6. As regards the merits of the case, the only ground for denial of the claim is that the burglars entered from the rear window and there was no indication of damage to the wooden frame/structure and/or fasteners. The entry into the premises is described as a 'skillful entry' in which there was no visible sign to indicate the use of force. It is not possible to agree with this interpretation. The opening of door or window for a surreptitious entry into the premises tantamount to forcible entry. Surely, the complainants would not have kept their doors or windows wide open to facilitate the entry of the thieves. The technical and far fetched interpretation made by the respondents is merely to avoid their liability. It is well-known that the cases in which claims are made from the Insurance Companies are not many and if a genuine claim is made once a while, the companies should not shy away to meet their liability. The objection raised by the respondents, as discussed above, is therefore, repelled.
7. As regards the quantum of compensation, the complainant produced on the record the Survey and Assessment Report dated December 29,1984 by Mr. N. Kumar Chhabra and Company, Chartered Accountants, who were assigned the work of assessment by United India Insurance Company. The said Surveyor assessed the loss and apportioned the same between the two Insurance Companies at the end of the report. The losses has been assessed at Rs. 26,275/- out of which Rs. 11,678/- has been placed as the share of United India Insurance Co. and Rs. 14,597/- as the share of New India Assurance Company.
8. The Survey and Assessment Report of another Surveyor, namely, Mr. D.S. Rattan, deputed by New India Assurance Company Ltd. is also on the record. The Surveyor had assessed the loss at Rs. 29,338/- out of which a sum of Rs. 16,298.66 was assigned to New India Assurance Company and Rs. 13,039.34 was assigned to M/s United India Insurance Company.
9. Out of the two assessments made by the Surveyors of the Respondent Companies, the consumer is entitled to get at least the benefit of the assessment which is on the lower side. Hence, the assessment made by Mr N. Kumar is accepted. The claimant shall get compensation regarding Insurance amounting to Rs. 26,275/- as apportioned above for the two respondent Insurance Companies. It is ordered accordingly.
There will be no order regarding costs etc.
Yogeshwar Sahni, Member âââ I am unable to agree with my learned colleagues because in my view neither the relevant law applicable to this complaint nor the facts of the case sustain its maintainability.
2. A bare recital of the facts. The alleged theft or house breaking took place on the 13th/14th of September, 1984. An F.I.R. was lodged with the police within hours of the discovery that valuable goods had been stolen from the Company premises. But the complainant firm took merely 5 years to initiate any legal action against the respondent Insurance Companies notwithstanding the fact that it was suffering heavily because of scarce finance. The only reason cited for this inaction is "lengthy correspondence" between the parties surely not a good enough justification.
3. The Consumer Protection Act was placed on the statute book in 1986. It came into force w.e.f. the 15th of April, 1987. The Chandigarh State Commission was established on the 21st of July, 1988 but the present complaint was made on the 21st of July, 1989.
4. These facts weigh very heavily against the complainant. His bonafides in invoking the protection of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in July, 1989 for a loss be sustained in 1984 are questionable. And I am, therefore, inclined to dismiss this complaint without even going into the question of whether in fact "forcible entry" was effected into the premises to remove the goods.
Order of the Commission : In view of the majority opinion, the complaint is allowed. The complainant shall be entitled to get total compensation of Rs. 26,275.00 as apportioned between the two Insurance Companies, in the Survey and Assessment Report dated 29.12.1984 of Mr. N. Kumar Chhabra and Co. The compensation payable by United India Insurance Co., will be Rs. 11,678.00 and that payable by the New India Assurance Co., will be Rs. 14,597.00.
2. There will be no order as to costs etc. Parties be informed.