AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THE complainant had insured with the opposite parties four air conditioners installed in M/s. New Gangothri Sweets and Fast Foods at No. 63, Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai-4 against Fire, Burglary and House Breaking. On 11.5.1996 when the restaurant was opened, the air conditioners were not working and the service personnel reported that the compressors and other accessories had been stolen. A complaint was also lodged. THE complainant informed the opposite parties and made a claim for a sum of Rs. 69,257/-. THE claim was repudiated by the opposite party and hence, the complaint.
THE opposite parties contended that after making a thorough investigation and after carefully considering all the materials and on due application of mind, the opposite parties repudiated the claim and, therefore, there is no deficiency in service. THE policy was issued to the complainant to cover the 4 air conditioners installed in Door No. 42, Cathedral Road whereas the alleged burglary had taken place at Hotel New Gangothri at No. 63, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai - 4. THE complainant has not informed about the shifting of the air conditioners to other premises. On this ground, the complaint has to be dismissed. Further, there was only a theft not burglary involving forcible entry and, therefore, the claim not be accepted by the opposite parties. The lower Forum after considering the material placed came to the conclusion that the complaint cannot be accepted and dismissed the complaint and hence, the present appeal.
It is necessary to refer to the policy. The policy is marked as Ex. A1. It reads as Burglary and House Breaking Policy. For the purpose of discussion, it is not necessary for us to go into the details to find out whether it was a case of burglary or theft. The policy mentions clearly that the premises containing the property insured is Hotel Gangothri, 42, Cathedral Road, Madras-600 034. The property insured are 4 numbers 3.0 TR ductable split air conditioners, valued at Rs. 3 lakhs. Therefore, what was insured was the property installed or located and kept in Door No. 42, Cathedral Road, Madras-600 034. The FIR relating to the crime mentions the address of the complainant as No. 63, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai. It also mentions that in New Gangothri Sweets and Fast Foods, No. 63, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Chennai where the air conditioners were installed were not working and when it was checked, they found that 4 compressors and other accessories were missing. In the claim made by the complainant to the opposite parties on 13.5.1996, he has again given the address as No. 63, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai, Madras-4. The Surveyor also mentions the name as New Gangothri Restaurant, No. 63, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai. In the complaint in Paragraph 1, the complainant has described himself as follows: Mr. Manoharsingh Lulla, Proprietor: M/s. New Gangothri Sweets and Fast Foods, residing at "Kleem Villa" No. 1/4, Kothari Road, III Floor, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034 and having the restaurant at No. 63, Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Chennai-600 004. Again in sub-paragraph 1 he has stated that he is the proprietor of the sweets and fast foods restaurant by name and style M/s. New Gangothri Sweets and Fast Foods, having the restaurant at No. 63, Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
WE have already referred to the fact that in the policy, it mentions merely as Hotel Gangothri, 42, Cathedral Road, Chennai whereas the property insured namely the air conditioners were installed in M/s. New Gangothri Sweets and Fast Foods at No. 63, Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai-4. Therefore, on the complainant''s own showing it is clear that what was insured was in a different property and situated in a different place whereas what was lost was air conditioners installed in Door No. 63, Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai, where the complainant is running a restaurant in the name of M/s. New Gangothri Sweets and Fast Foods. But the document namely policy of insurance shows that the air conditioners installed in Hotel Gangothri, 42, Cathedral Road, Chennai was the subject matter of the insurance. It is also to be pointed out that the Surveyor who inspected the premises has stated that there was no evidence of forcible entry or house breaking and the theft was not followed by an actual forcible violent entry or exit from the premises and it was a simple theft. The complainant is apparently running two establishments, one in the name and style of Hotel Gangothri at No. 42, Cathedral Road and another M/s. New Gangothri Sweets and Fast Foods at No. 63, Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai-4. It is not the complainant''s case in the complaint nor he has produced any material to show that they are not different establishments but one and the same and that either the door number is given by mistake or that No. 63, Dr. Radhakrishnan Road is the new door number and No. 42, Cathedral Road was the old number of the property. To that effect, there is no pleading nor any material has been produced before the Forum. In fact, he has produced an invitation card from which we find that they have opened new spacious shop (Centrally Air Conditioned) known as Gangotree, House of Exclusive Bengali Sweets and Fast Foods, on 14.10.1994 at No. 63, Dr. Radhakrishan Salai (opp. Hotel, New Woodlands), Madras-600 004. This invitation card carries a footnote stating that no sales at 42, Cathedral Road, Madras-86. An insertion has also been given in the newspaper stating as follows: "To our new Address, No. 63, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai (opp. Hotel New Woodlands), Madras-600 004". It also mentions "No sales at the old address". It mentions that Gangotree Sweets shifts to a new location. Thus, it is clear that the complainant has started the fast foods and sweet shop at No. 63, Dr. Radhakrishnan Road, Mylapore, Chennai-4 in addition to the restaurant he is running at No. 42, Cathedral Road, Chennai-86. Even assuming that he has closed down his business at No. 42, Cathedral Road, there is nothing on record to show that he has intimated the change of address to the opposite parties. Unless the change of address is notified and a fresh policy is issued by the opposite parties covering the risk of fittings installed in the premises bearing Door No. 63, Radhakrishnan Road, the complainant cannot seek any relief under the policy. Therefore, in any view of the matter, it is clear that the lower Forum has given adequate reasons for rejecting the claim and we, for our part, do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the lower Forum and we accordingly do so.
IN the result, this appeal is dismissed but in circumstances, we order no costs. Appeal dismissed.