NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. NATIONAL PROCESSORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two cross-appeals arises from the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, whereby the State Commission partly allowed the complaint. Feeling not satisfied with the order of the State Commission, both the parties have come in appeal before us. 1. The facts of the two cross-appeals are as follows. The respondent in the First Appeal No. 389 of 1997, M/s. National Processors, Amritsar, is engaged in the business of yarn, finished shawls, etc. as work for local manufacturers. He had taken two insurance policies from the National Insurance Company (the appellant) covering stock-in-trade against loss or damage by fire and burglary. The case of the respondent is that on the night intervening 4th and 5th of March, 1990, burglary took place in the factory premises and that about 2400 shawls and 350 kilos of yarn belonging to various local manufacturers and lying at the respondent's premises were stolen. It is not disputed that the date on which the alleged theft took place and the type of material stolen are covered by the insurance policies.

(2.) The respondent promptly lodged a police complaint on March 5, 1990 and the police registered an F.I.R. Simultaneously he claimed from the Insurance Company an amount of Rs. 4,03,408/- on account of loss of shawls and yarn. The Insurance Company appointed M/s. SSB Surveyors and Consultants Pvt. Ltd., Chandigarh as Surveyors. A detailed survey was conducted promptly on March 7, 1990 at the factory premises. The Surveyors sent their report to Insurance Company on September 20, 1990. Meanwhile, the police had filed the case as untraced vide their report dated August 1, 1990 which report was subsequently submitted to the Insurance Company. Even though the Surveyors submitted the report, the Insurance Company after a lapse of over three months, i.e. on 3.1.1991 appointed one M/s. Integrated Security Corporation of India, Chandigarh, as Investigator. Mr. D.C. Sharma of the Integrated Security Corporation of India, twice visited the factory premises in January and in April, 1991, and demanded further information which was again supplied. It appears from record that Shri D.C. Sharma gave his report to the Insurance Company on May 3, 1991. However, as the Insurance Company did not settle the claim, the respondent continued visiting the office of the Insurance Company but with no success.

(3.) The respondent, therefore, issued a legal notice on February 27, 1992 to the Insurance Company through the Advocate calling upon them to settle and decide their claim within ten days of the receipt of the notice thereof.