SUMAN PLASTIC INDUSTRIES vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

THE complainant is a partnership concern and is situate at Village Saidpura near Dera Bassi, District Patiala. Its registered office is at Shivalik Enclave, Mani Majra, Chandigarh, and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of plastic conduit pipe, deluxe and heavy duty bends etc. It possessed an insurance policy in the sum of Rs. 7.00 lacs against theft which was valid for the period 14.7.1995 to 13.7.1996. It has been alleged mat on the intervening night of 12 and 13.7.1996, a theft of goods took place by breaking open the lock in the factory premises. A Daily Diary Report was lodged at Police Station Dera Bassi (Annexure C-V). THE claim put forward in para 8 of the complaint is reproduced as under : "(i) Rs. 3.25 lacs in terms of loss suffered by the complainant including interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of claim of theft and till the date of its realisation; (ii) Rs. 5.00 lacs on account of monetary loss suffered by the complainant and the payments of instalments to the financial institutions and for procuring the fresh raw material, unfinished goods so as to make the unit viable for manufacturing the finished goods and to conduct the subsequent sale as the entire chain stood broken and the opposite parties did not pay at the time when the monetary help was required; (iii) Rs. 2.00 lacs on account of mental torture, monetary loss, physical pains and harassment caused to the complainant by the opposite parties; (iv) Rs. 10,000/- on account of litigation expenses."

ON behalf of the respondents, a reply has been filed wherein it has been averred that according to the survey report M/s. Consolidated Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., Surveyors and Loss Assessors, the loss was assessed at Rs. 1,99,684.38 but according to the facts mentioned in the Daily Diary Report, Mukesh Kumar, watchman of the complainant was suspect and if this was the position, the Insurance Company was not liable on account of Exclusion Clause No. 2 in the policy. There is a report in Gurmukhi issued by MHC of Police Station, Derabassi dated 12.11.1997 which shows that the case remained untraced. We have gone through this report and specifically brought it to the notice of the learned Counsel for the respondent. A perusal of the record shows that there was not an iota of evidence to show that Mukesh Kumar, a peon/ watchman of the complainant committed or was associated with the theft. The mere fact that the name of this employee was mentioned as a suspect in the FIR or that he has left the job or absconded would not render the complainant ineligible. A perusal of the report of Surveyor Annexure R-1 dated 18.8.1996 shows that the net loss was assessed at Rs. 1,99,684.38. There is no effective rebuttal. In the circumstances of the case we hold that the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,99,684.38 assessed by the Surveyor referred to above. The conclusion is that the complaint succeeds and it is ordered that the sum of Rs. 1,99,684.38 shall be payable by the respondent together with interest @ 12% per annum w.e.f. the date of institution of the complaint till realisation. Counsel''s fee Rs. 1000/-. Complaint succeeds.