VIJAY JUNEJA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complaint petitioner is an exporter of garments. He has been getting his goods meant for export insured from the Opposite Party Insurance Company to cover raw materials, finished and semi-finished goods and furniture and other allied materials. These goods were stored in the premises of the complainant on the second floor of his building in Mayapuri, New Delhi. The goods meant for export were also stored in the same building. The policy of insurance was against risks of fire etc. In the complaint under consideration the complainant had a policy of insurance effective from the 16th August, 1991 to 15th August, 1992. According to the complainant, he had a confirmed order for export of 30,000 pieces of certain type of garments to Rome. The value of the export order was U.S. $ 1,05,000. For executing this order, the complainant purchased cloth and other raw material and fabricated garments to be shipped before 31st December 1991. In all 19,205 pieces were ready for shipment before the 23rd December, 1991. These had been packed in boxes and the remaining goods were partly in the process of being packed and the rest were lying in the premises of the complainant exporter. The value of the consignment ready for shipment was US $ 35,000 or Rs. 8,92,500/-. The Apparel Export Promotion Council had also verified and issued a certificate for the export of the above mentioned quantity of garments.

(2.) ON 24th December, 1991, there was an incident of fire in the premises of the complainant which destroyed the goods stored therein including the goods to be exported which were lying duly packed and ready for export. These goods were destroyed along with the furniture and other items lying therein. According to the complaint petition, the employees left the premises after 12 (midnight) i.e., on the 24th December, 1991 and the premises/factory was closed by the peon of the complainant. The peon also went way to his residence. Next morning when the peon, as usual, came to the premises, on his opening the factory, he noticed fire having occurred in the premises. He reported to the Manager about the incident of fire. The matter was also reported to the fire brigade and the latter is stated to have come on the spot and brought the fire under control. An F.I.R. was also lodged with the police. According to the complaint petition, the fire seems to have occurred due to some short circuit in the premises. The complainant made a claim with the respondent Insurance Company under the policy of insurance. The respondent Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor but his claim has not been settled by the Insurance Company till the date of filing of the complaint viz. 18th February, 1993.

(3.) WE do not find it necessary to go into the complaint deeply or even to refer to the reply of the respondent for purposes of disposal of this case. At the hearing, we enquired from the complainant whether there was no chowkidar at the premises where so many valuable goods were stored and how was it that nobody noticed the factum of fire after 12.00 a.m. on the 24th December, 1991 till next morning when the peon, who had locked the factory after midnight, came at his usual time to open the factory. It was pointed out to the complainant that there must have been flames and fumes caused by such a 'devastating fire' which destroyed such a large quantity of garments. We also expressed surprise that nobody in the neighbourhood noticed this fire nor had the fire spread to the ground floor or the neighbouring buildings which was surprising in view of the fact that no effort was made during this period to bring the fire under control and extinguish it as the report of the fire was lodged with the Fire Brigade on the 25th January, 1992 (page 61-A of the paper book). Counsel for the complainant was not able to clarify any of these points. We have, therefore, come to the conclusion that this complaint cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated upon by this Commission and it should be dismissed on the said limited ground. This is without prejudice to the complainant's right to pursue his claim against the Insurance Company by way of a suit if he is so advised.