BALBIR SINGH AND ORS Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS
LAWS(HPCDRC)-2010-5-9
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on May 24,2010

Balbir Singh And Ors Appellant
VERSUS
National Insurance Company Limited And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) CONSUMER Complaint No.104/2007 filed by appellant has been dismissed on 31.08.2009 by District Forum below. As per averments made in the complaint, appellant is running a hardware store at Village Partap Nagar Amb, Tehsil Amb, District Una. Appellant had obtained cash credit loan facility in May, 2002 from Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Limited at its Amb branch. Material of appellant was insured from year to year basis. Annexure C -4 is the copy of cover note. Stock of appellant being insured on the date when theft of 30 quintals of saria (iron bars) was found missing in between 8.30 p.m. on of 02.04.2007 and 8.40 a.m. of 03.04.2007 per the appellant. According to him 40 quintals saria was already there and he had purchased 30 quintals more as per bill annexure C -5. This saria was kept under chain duly locked for its protection by him. On 02.04.2007 he left his shop at 8.30 p.m., after having closed the shop as usual and went to his house. The next morning, i.e. on 03.04.2007 at about 8.40 a.m., when he reached his shop, it was found that iron chain was broken and about 40 quintals saria was missing. He went to Police Station, Amb. Police instead of recording FIR, recorded a daily diary report, annexure OP -3. It has been observed in this report that appellant could not produce bill of saria in question, nor cash memo, or stock register etc. Theft complained of was ruled out by the police and it was observed that saria might have been sold. Thereafter appellant appears to have filed a complaint before JMIC -I, at Amb who forwarded it to police under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. As a result of it, FIR No.92/2007 was registered at Police Station Amb. What was the fate of this FIR, learned counsel for the parties were unable to tell us today during the course of hearing.
(2.) AFTER noticing the theft of saria, case of appellant is that he informed both, i.e. the financier bank, as well as respondent -insurer. Surveyor was deputed, who found that saria was kept at a distant place from the insured premises, as such claim was not tenable. On this ground complaint was contested by the respondent before the District Forum below. After taking note of material before it and hearing the parties, District Forum below dismissed the complaint. Hence this appeal.
(3.) MR . Chandel submitted that his client had taken due care for the safety of the saria, and he had tied it with iron chain, which was duly locked. He further submitted that his client did not incur any business transaction of the saria that was purchased by him vide annexure C -5 or that was already there at the spot. Per Mr. Chandel theft had actually taken place and the stand of the respondent, as well as observation made in the Daily Diary Report, annexure OP -3 to the contrary were not correct. He thus prayed for allowing this appeal and consequent grant of compensation as claimed in the complaint. While contesting the case of appellant, Mr. Thakur on behalf of respondent -insurance company submitted, that policy conditions were violated by the appellant by stacking saria in the open, that too at a distant place from the insured premises.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.