IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

                                                Date of Decision: 18.03.2016

CC No.357/2013

In the matter of:

Sh. Suresh Chand Jain

Sole Prop. Of M/s. Jaichanda Electricals

Now at 1892/27, Ground Floor

Hariram Electrical Market

Bhagirath Palace

Chandni Chowk

Delhi-110 006                                   ………….                       Complainant

Versus

1.      M/s. Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd.

          Zonal Office : SCO 39 & 40, Ist Floor

          Sector-31, Gurgaon-1220002 (Haryana)

2.      Allahabad Bank

          Through its Chief Manager

          A-13, First Floor, DDA Commercial Complex

          Defence Colony, New Delhi-110 024      ….Opposite Parties

CORAM

O P Gupta, Member (Judicial)

S C Jain, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?              Yes

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                         Yes   

S.C. Jain, Member

JUDGMENT

      The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection
Act 1986 (hereinafter refer to as the ‘Act’).
     The facts stated by the complainant in his complaint in brief are that on 8/12/11 & 5/12/11 the
complainant took two insurance policies from the OP No.1 through OP No.2 covering the period 25/11/11
to 24/11/12 in the sum of Rs.50 lacs each being policy Nos. 2913/51062297/01/B00 and
2114/51062298/01/B00 for the risks of burglary and standard fire and special perils with earthquake and
shock endorsement. On 28/3/12 the complainant informed the bank/OP No.2 that the construction of his
Bawana premises had been completed and he has transferred his stock to that premises situated at C-276,
Sector-2, Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi and the bank has acknowledged the said intimation and the bank
i.e. OP No. 2 also informed this to OP No. 1 i.e. the Insurance Company which is a joint venture of OP-2
Bank.

On 29/6/12 a theft/burglary took place at Bawana premises and FIR No.213/2012 was registered at PS
Bawana and both the OPs were informed on 30/6/12 itself. On 30.06.2012 OP No.1 deputed its surveyor
and on 1/7/12 the complainant filed formal complaint to OP No.1. The surveyor took photographs and
carried out the survey of the premises which continued for number of days.  Surveyor asked for the
documents from time to time which were duly submitted by the complainant but complainant submitted
that the OPs are not interested in processing the claim with malafide intention as some time surveyor had
asked from him to supply 3 documents, sometime 5 documents another time 8 documents instead of
asking the desired documents in one go.  The complainant further submitted in the complaint that the
insurance business of OP-1 is a joint venture of both the OPs.

Complainant submitted that after theft/burglary fire also broke out in the premises on 18/10/12 and status
report was issued by the fire department.  The complaint lodged burglary claim for Rs.45 lacs and also
lodged fire claim for Rs.4 lacs respectively which was not settled by the OPs.  Aggrieved by conduct of
the OPs the complainant field the present complaint for deficiency in providing services by the OPs and
prayed for award of Rs. 49 lacs towards loss and prayed for compensation of Rs.20 lacs for mental agony,
harassment and for providing deficient services, apart from interest at the rate at which the OP No.2 viz
Allahabad Bank had been charging alongwith cost of litigation as this Commission deems just and proper.

Registered Notices were sent to OPs who appeared and contested their case.  Both the parties field their
evidence by way of affidavit and led their arguments and also filed their written arguments.

In its written statement, the OP No.1/ Insurance Company contended that the policies were issued in
respect of location at Rajgarh Extension, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi and Bhagirath Palace, Chandni Chowk,
Delhi.  The premises bearing no. 276, Pocket-C, Sector 2, Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi was not covered
in the policy and the complainant did not intimate the OP regarding change/shifting of insured premises
and stated that the letter dated 31/3/12 issued by the OP No.2/Bank whereby the OP No.2/Bank intimated
to the OP No.1/Insurance Company regarding shifting of the premises by the complainant was not
received by it.  The claim was accordingly denied in terms of clause 4 of general condition of the policy
schedule.  However, it has been admitted by the OP No.1/Insurer that immediately on advice of burglary
loss, it had appointed an independent IRDA licensed surveyor to inspect the Bawana Premises and
surveyor submitted its status report dated 21/3/13 determining the tentative loss of stolen goods at
Rs.7,13,830/- as against the final claim made by the complainant of Rs.41,31,180/- on account of
burglary. 

     It was further stated by the OP No.1/Insurer that the burglary claim was repudiated vide letter dated
22/8/13 for the reasons that the premises at Bawana was the insured premises but the stock stored therein
could not be indemnified as they were not insured.  It was further stated that the loss pertaining to the
alleged fire could not be processed due to non submission of any documents by the complainant and thus
the complainant is not entitled for the claims and accordingly the prayer was made for the dismissal of the
complaint.

     The OP No.2/Allahabad Bank in its written version contended that the complainant is the guarantor for
the repayment of loan amount in respect of loan sanctioned by the bank and that the bank has no concern
with the alleged dispute of the complainant with the OP No.1/insurance company.  Further contention of
the OP No.2/Bank is that the complainant is liable to repay the loan amount along with interest as
applicable under the law and banking rules. 
     In his Rejoinder to the Written Statement filed by the OP No.1/Insurance Company, the complainant
has contended that the fact about completion of construction of Bawana premises and shifting of stock
was duly informed by him to the OP No.2 vide letter dated 28/3/12 and the OP No.2/Bank has also
informed the OP No.1 in this respect vide its letter dated 31/3/12 and that is why the surveyor had visited
at the said Bawana place where the theft and fire had taken place.  The contention of the complainant, in
nutshell, is that the premises where the peril took place was covered under the insurance policies. Further
contention of the complainant is that although the detailed list of articles stolen and destroyed in fire were
given and supplied by him to the Opposite parties and all the purchase & sale bills duly certified by the
Chartered Accountant were supplied, yet OP No.1 assessed and estimated the loss as per their whims and
kept on finding unsustainable and false pleas to cause further harassment to the complainant. 

It is the contention of the complainant that at the time of selling the insurance policies and accepting the
insurance premium, the insurance company/OP No.1 never raised any objection for non-maintenance of
stock register which they are raising now. Complainant in their support filed copy of letter dt. 01.07.2012
vide which he supplied all the required papers to the surveyor which were duly received by them on
01.07.2012 itself.  These documents have information letter regarding Movement of Stock Transfer, VAT
Returns, I.T.Returns for different concerned years immediately prior to Burglary, Trading A/c, Stock
Statement, Copy of FIR, Copy of Statement given by the Neighbour, Cash Book, Bank Book, Details of
Stock which were lying at Bawana.  The stock statement filed by the complainant with the surveyor is
duly certified by chartered accountant and also corelate with vat and I.T.Returns and purchase and sales
bill which shows the stock at Bawana amounting to Rs. 41.00 Lacs approximately.

     In his rejoinder to the Written Statement filed by the OP No.2/Bank, the complainant denied the
averment made by the Bank that the bank had no concern with the present dispute and contended that it is
a joint venture of both the Opposite Parties as is clearly evident from Annexure-1 placed at page 11 of the
complaint and on the policy schedule also, where it is clearly mentioned that OP-1 is a joint venture
company of OP-2 and Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Japan.  Further contention of the complainant is
that the bank is also jointly and severally liable to make loss caused to the complainant under the policies
having joint interest in the insurance company.  It has specifically been stated that in the year 2006, the
present M.D. of the OP No.1/Insurance Company was the M.D. of the OP No.2/Allahabad Bank  and now
one of the Executive Director of OP No.1 is presently also the M.D. of OP No.2/Bank and that in India
nobody knows OP No.1/Insurance Company as it is doing business exclusively with the aid and help of
OP No.2/Allahabad Bank, Karnataka Bank and Indian Overseas Bank and still the OP No.2/Bank says
that it has no concern with the present dispute.  

     Parties have led their respective Affidavit in evidence.  In his Evidence, the complainant relied upon
the documents Annexure 1 to 17, copies of which were already filed along with the complaint.  In its
Evidence, the OP No.1/Insurance Company has relied upon the documents like Insurance Policies and
copy of Final Survey Report dated 12/8/13 along with status report dated 21/3/13 which were filed along
with written statement.  In its Evidence, the OP No.2/Bank has also filed various documents like D.P.
Note, Term Loan Agreement, letter of hypothecation & Statement of Account etc.

     We have heard the learned counsels appearing for both the parties at considerable length thrice.  After
hearing both the parties, we have also gone through the entire material placed on record and have given a
thoughtful consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case.  We have also gone through the case
laws cited by the ld Counsel for the parties.

     Undeniably, the complainant had purchased two insurance policies bearing Nos.
2913/51062297/01/B00 and 2114/51062298/01/B00 from OP No.1 on 8/12/2011 & 5/12/2011
respectively for the period 25/11/11 to 24/11/12 for a sum of Rs.50 lacs each.  The fact that the aforesaid
policies were purchased by the complainant through OP No.2/Allahabad Bank and the said policies were
meant to cover the stocks of the complainant from the risks of earthquake, fire and shock endorsement,
burglary etc is also not in dispute. 

From a bare perusal of the Insurance Policy Schedules filed by the complainant at page 11-14 of the
complaint, it is evident that the OP No.1/Universal Sompo General Insurance Co. Ltd is a joint venture
between Allahabad Bank, Indian Overseas Bank, Karnataka Bank and Dabur Investments.  It is further
evident from these Schedules that the name of the OP No.2 viz Allahabad Bank has been shown as
Intermediary Name and hypothecation has also been mentioned in favour of the OP No.2/Bank.  Thus, we
find force in the contention of the complainant that both the Opposite parties viz Insurance Company and
the Bank were engaged in joint venture business and the subjected policies were arranged by the Bank as
a part of entire arrangement to cover the risks from certain perils and during the entire period the OP
No.2/Allahabad Bank was the de-jure owner of the stocks in question for the reason that the entire stocks
were admittedly hypothecated to the bank and from the documents placed on record, it is clear that the
entire arrangement was mutually entered into between the parties for protecting the interests of OP
No.2/Bank as well.    

     After issuing the aforesaid insurance policy schedules, the insurance policies have been claimed to
have been dispatched by the OP No.1 to the complainant on 16/12/11 but no such courier receipt showing
dispatch or acknowledgment of the complainant was placed on record by the OP No.1 along with the
Written Statement.  However, Original Courier Receipt bearing No.0212520239 dated 16/12/11 has been
placed on record by the OP No.1 along with its Evidence Affidavit which marked as Exh. RW-1/2.  A bare
perusal of the said receipt shows that it nowhere contains the acknowledgment of the complainant or
anybody on his behalf.  Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that filing of the said courier receipt
by the OP No.1/Insurance Company is nothing but an attempt to fill the lacunae of non-dispatch of
insurance policies to the complainant and thus the OP No.1 has been deficient in rendering services to the
complainant and accordingly is not entitled to take any advantage of any of the clauses of the said
polices. 

     The complainant has claimed that vide letter dated 28/3/12, he had informed the OP No.2/Allahabad
Bank about completion of construction and transfer of stocks to 276, Pocket-C, Sector-2, Bawana
Industrial Area, Delhi.   Copy of the said letter has been placed at page 15 of the complaint which, inter-
alia, after giving necessary particulars about Loan Account No. & stocks transferred etc, clearly states as
under :-

“This best of our knowledge & kindly do update our record in your books as per this information, and
kindly send the copy of the same information to whom it ever be concerned insurance company, of our
above said premises by you.”

This very fact has not been disputed by the OPs and therefore is deemed to be admitted.  Therefore, from
a combined reading of Insurance Policy Schedules filed by OP-1 and the Letter dated 28/3/12 written by
the complainant to the bank, a logical inference that can be drawn is that as the Insurance Company and
the Bank are the joint ventures, the complainant found it sufficient to intimate the Bank alone about
shifting of stock at Bawana with the request to further inform the insurance company and there was no
reason for the complainant to even presume any failure on the part of the bank for not complying with the
instructions of the complainant.   On receiving the letter dated 28/3/12, in fact, the OP No.2/Bank has
issued a letter bearing No. LJP/Adv/Jaichand/163 dated 31/3/12 to the OP No.1/Insurance Company under
the heading “Addition of premises for stocks” and forwarded a copy of letter dated 28/3/12 received from
the complainant.  This very fact of forwarding the letter dated 31/3/12 along with copy of letter dated
28/3/12 to the OP No.1 has not been denied by the OP No.2/Bank.  However, OP No.1 has denied to have
received the said letter from OP No.2.  There is nothing on record to indicate that the said letter was not
sent by the OP No.2 to the OP No.1 as per request made by the complainant and in all probabilities, it can
safely be presumed that the addition of Bawana premises as well as shifting of stock there was well within
the knowledge of both the OPs and despite of specific knowledge the OP No.1/Insurance Company did
not care to protect the interests of the OP No.2/Bank being the de-jure owner of the goods and a joint
venture of OP No.1 as well as the interest of the complainant. 

The presumption of having knowledge about the addition of new premises by the OP No.1/Insurance
Company is drawn in favour of the complainant and further finds support from the fact that it had
appointed its surveyor to inspect and survey the new premises which was done by the surveyor.
 Moreover, the claim of the complainant of informing about the newly added premises was not refuted by
the OP No.1/Insurance Company even after 29/6/12 i.e. the first incidence of peril till the second date of
peril/fire.  Even otherwise, if the version of the OP No.1/Insurance Company is to be believed that it had
not received the letter dated 31/3/12 sent by the OP No.2/Bank, the bank has to be held to be deficient in
rendering due services to the complainant and being the joint venture of OP No.1, both the OPs are jointly
or severally liable to compensate the loss suffered by the complainant.  The Counsel for the OP
No.1/Insurance Company has relied upon some decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission.  We have
considered the same.  Suffice it to say that these cases are distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in none of
these cases the Insurance Company and the Bank were the joint venture of each other having common
management whereas in the present case the OP No.1/Insurance Company is the joint venture of the OP
No.1/Allahabad Bank.    

The OP1 have heavily relied upon two judgments of Hon’ble National Commission, one judgment titled
Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. and another vs. P.R. Automobiles and Oils and another 1 (2010) CPJ 
83(NC) and the other Judgment relied by OP1 is S.Rathinavelu Vs. the New India Assurance Co.
Ltd & Ors II (1995) CPJ,135 (NC).    The Judgment in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd of Hon’ble National
Commission is quite distinct and not applicable on facts of this case as in Oriental Insurance case the
letter of shifting the premises was sent after the fire took place and the complainant has failed to establish
and prove that he had submitted the letter of shifting of premises before fire took place, but in the present
case it is established and admitted not only by the bank but by the insurance company that the letter dated
28.03.2012 was received by the bank as well as by the insurance company and burglary took place after
three months of this letter and there is no explanation on behalf of the Insurance Company as well as
bank, why they remained sit on this letter by not endorsing the changed place of the complainant where he
has shifted his stock neither they intimated the complainant for not endorsing the same .  Therefore in
view of the above discussion and as per admission of the bank as well as Insurance Company in its reply
at para No.14 (1) and page No.5 under the head of affected premises the said authority of Hon’ble
National Commission is quite distinct and not applicable and as per section 56 of Evidence Act also when
facts are admitted, they need no further proof.  So it is a clear case that change/shifting of premises was
informed by the complainant three months prior to incident of theft and 7 months prior to the incident of
fire.  Similarly the other judgment relied upon by OP-1 is completely different on facts and not applicable
in the present case. In this case the bank has admitted and the insurance company had also admitted about
the receipt of the intimation of shifting of the place at Bawana Delhi by the complainant and admission
need no proof as per section 56 of Evidence Act.

In their support complainant had cited latest judgment of Hon’ble National Commission tilted as State
Bank of India Vs. Sri Easwari Vaccines & Om. Vaccine Clinic & Anr. III (2014) CPJ 106 NC, in
which Hon’ble National Commission had held that where bank had given loan to some party and bank
had tie up of direct insurance business being a corporate agent for insurance coverage of all advances
made by them then, it is the duty of the bank to get the policy renewed and deal with insurance company
to protect its own interest as well as of the borrower. Where as in the present case bank is in joint venture
with insurance company i.e. OP-1 and hence has the duty to protect their own interest as well as of the
borrowers and if bank had failed to do so then bank is at fault and had committed deficiency in providing
services.

The complainant in its support had further cited another judgment of this Commission delivered by then
President Hon’ble Justice J.D.Kapoor in a case titled as Mridu Plastics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. on 08.05.2006 in Complaint Case No. 18/2006 wherein fire took place in
the factory but in policy the address mentioned was of the office, in that case Hon’ble Justice J.D.Kapoor
had held that address of office in the policy will be understood as address of the factory and ordered the
insurance company to pay the claim of fire which took place at the factory.

There is no dispute that both the perils of theft and fire occurred on 29/6/12 & 18/10/12 respectively were
reported by the complainant to both the OPs and filed respective claims of Rs.45 lacs & Rs.4 lacs.  The
complaint for the theft occurred on 29/6/12 was made by the complainant and an FIR No.213/2012 dated
30/6/12 was registered at Bawana Police Station to this effect.  Thereafter, the Surveyor namely M/s
Cunningham Lindsey International Pvt Ltd was appointed by the OP No.1/Insurance Company to carry
out survey.  Had the OP No.1/Insurance Company not received the communication letter dated 31/3/12
from the OP No.2/Bank, it would not have deputed its surveyor to carry out survey of the subjected
premises.  It is the claim of the OP No.1 that despite of various requests having been made by the said
surveyor, the complainant did not provide complete documents. 

On the contrary, the complainant’s claim is that he had provided all the documents which were available
with him or which could be practically possible for him to obtain from outside sources.  It is the further
claim of the complainant that despite of filing all the possible documents, the OP No.1/Insurance
Company assessed the tentative loss of stolen goods at Rs.7,13,830/- (as against the original claim of Rs.
45 lacs and revised claim of Rs.41,31,180/- during the course of survey) without giving any cogent reason
how they have arrived at this figure without considering the stock pledged with bank, statement of stocks
at Bawana alongwith correlated VAT and I.T.Returns showing the stock duly certified by chartered
accountant. This clearly shows total arbitral attitude adopted by the surveyor and Insurance Company and
loss was finally assessed at Rs.3,56,915/- vide Final Report dated 12/8/13 which was also ultimately
repudiated by taking various false and unsustainable grounds.  The basis of adopting the figure of stock
available at the premises at Rs.10 lac is not explained and it appears that the same has been arbitrarily
adopted by the Surveyor.  Moreover, the claim of Rs.4 lacks filed on account of burnt stock in fire on
18/10/12 has not been processed by the OP No.1 on the false grounds. 

     It is further established and proved by the complainant that the complainant has given to the surveyor
the following documents:-

A. Movement of stock transfer.

B. D.VAT return w.e.f  1.4.2011 to 30.09.2011.
C. D.VAT return w.e.f 1.10.2011 to 30.02.2012.
D. Income return with balance sheet for the year 2010-11, 2011-12, 20120-13.
E. Provisional trading account w.e.f 1.04.2011 to 3.6.2012.
F. Stock statement as on 29.02.2012, copy of purchase bills etc. which is clear from Annexure-5 and
acknowledged by the surveyor of OP No.1. Beside this the complainant has also submitted cash book
for the financial year 2011-12, 2012-13, and bank book for the financial year 2011-12 and 2012-13.
G. Tentative details of safe stock lying at Bawana, Bhagirath Place, Rajgarh vide Annexure-5.

The said documents were received by the surveyor of the OP No.1. The surveyor of OP No.1 has admitted
about the receipt of all these documents vide acknowledgment as per Annexure-6 with the complainant
but failed to file all these record before the Commission with malafide intention and in the circumstances
we are of the opinion that the complainant has supplied all the relevant documents to assess its loss
towards burglary and fire and OP-1 had wrongly rejected the claim for non submission of demanded
documents. 

The complainant in their support had also cited following judgment to prove their case:

i. Sri Priyalukshmi Garments and Ors. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Original Petition No.
85 of 1999 decided on 01.05.2014 by Hon’ble National Commission.
ii. M/s Son Spices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. First Appeal No. 609 of 2006 decided
on 08.07.2011 by Hon’ble National Commission.
iii. Jaipur Ceramic Pvt. Ltd. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Complaint Case No. 5/2006 decided on
20.05.2008 by Hon’ble National Commission.
iv. Ramesh Chander Aggarwal Vs. Regency Hospital Ltd. & Ors. (2009) 9 SCC (709).

The gist of all these cases is that if documents like stock register, sale and purchase bills, accounts books
etc. are destroyed in fire or floods or stolen then stock prepared on the basis of Bank Statement and other
correlated and corroborated documents like sale & purchase bills or accounts and stock statements filled
with banks and other departments should be taken as true and report of the expert surveyor is not ultimate
document to reach at a conclusion to allow or not to allow the claim, but courts had to apply their mind
also.

It has also been proved on record that OP No.1/Insurance Company is a joint venture of OP No.2 and the
insurance policies had been taken by OP No.2 bank to safeguard its loan amount which is not denied by
OP in their reply therefore, OP No.2 bank had been rightly and correctly impleaded as partly in the
present complaint and the OP No.2 is a necessary party.  We are also of the opinion that OP No.1 for the
first time has filed before this commission the assessment of the loss towards fire and we hold that both
the OPs have committed deficiency in service by not assessing the loss caused to the complainant towards
burglary and fire as a result of which the complainant failed to liquidate his loan amount of OP No.2 bank
and his business has been completely ruined and  his property has been taken by the bank charging
compound interest @ 16% with penalty.
       In its Affidavit-in-Evidence, the OP No.2/Bank has stated that on 17/8/2010, the complainant had
taken a Term Loan of Rs30,00,000/- and OD Limit of Rs.35,00,000/- aggregating at Rs.65 lacs by
furnishing D.P. Note for Rs.65 lacs in favour of the bank and mortgaging the subjected property situated
at Plot No.276, Pocket-C, Udyog Vihar, Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi by virtue of registered lease deed
as document No.5662 dated 15/5/2007 as collateral security.  It has been further stated that as on 31/5/13,
a sum of Rs.60,75,077/- is outstanding as recoverable from the complainant along with further interest.  In
nutshell submission of the Bank are that it is legally entitled to recover its loan amount alongwith interest
from the complainant.  There is no denial by the bank that the OP No.1/Insurance Company is not its joint
venture and at times the Managing Directors of both the OPs were not the same person as specifically
highlighted by the complainant.  There is also no denial by the bank that it had not forwarded the letter
dated 28/3/12 received from the complainant to the OP No.1/Insurance Company.   

      Clause 6 of the Term Loan Agreement dated 17/10/10 executed between the complainant and the OP
No.2/Bank clearly lays down the basis and background which creates an obligation on the complainant to
ensure that the goods in question are duly covered by the insurance policies.  Clause 6 further provides
that in case of any failure on the part of the complainant to comply with the requirement of insurance
covers, the OP No.2/Bank shall be entitled to complete the said procedure and recover the cost of the said
procedure from the complainant.  It is, therefore, clear that the entire arrangement of having insurance
cover for the goods in question arose on account of loan agreement/arrangement between OP No.2 and the
complainant and the records show that admittedly the property situated at 276, Pocket-C, Sector-2,
Bawana Industrial Area, Delhi was mortgaged to the OP No.2/Bank and OP-2 Bank had paid the entire
premium of both the insurance covers/policies by debiting the account of the complainant. 

      Next question which arises for consideration is whether the OP No.1/Insurance Company has correctly
dealt with the claims filed by the complainant.  So far as the claim of Rs.4 lacs on account of stock burnt
in fire is concerned, the OP No.1 has admitted that it had not processed the claim for non-submission of
the documents by the complainant but nothing has been placed on record by the OP No.1 to indicate the
particulars of further documents required which have not been submitted by the complainant.  However
accepting the reasons of OP1 for not processing the claim of complainant for Rs.4 Lacs for non-
submission of documents, we are inclined to give opportunity to the OP-1 to process the claim after
furnishing necessary demanded documents by the complainant within 30 days of the receipt of these
orders and OP-1 shall process the claim of Rs.4 lacs of the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of
documents from the complainant. As far as the claim arising out of the stolen goods is concerned, it has
been established that the complainant had suffered losses on 29/6/12 but the final report was not given by
the surveyor of the OP No.1 till November 2012 and the matter kept on delaying on the pretext of getting
more and more documents which were already provided by the complainant.  The aforesaid conduct of the
OP No.1 clearly smacks of malafide intention to delay the claim of the complainant worth Rs.41,31,180/-
which complainant had very well substantiated by filing complete statement of goods lying at the
Godown/Factory before theft amounting to Rs. 43,79,780/- and another statement of goods actually stolen
amounting to Rs. 41,31,180/- duly supported by bills of purchase and sales, stock statement submitted to
the bank, VAT and I.T.Returns. 

Accordingly we are of the considered opinion that Ops had been deficient in providing services to the
complainant and it is held that the complainant is entitled to be compensated for the goods stolen on
29/6/12 worth Rs.41,31,180/-. 

Consequently, complaint partly succeeds and we pass the following order:-

a. OPs are directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.41,31,180/- on account of claim filed for
goods stolen from complainant’s premises and shall also pay interest @ 12% p.a. on this amount from
01.06.2013 i.e. 6 months after lodging the claim till payment.
b. OP are also further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2.00 Lac to the complainant towards
compensation for mental agony, harassment and for deficiency in providing services.

These orders are joint as well as several against the Ops.

The compliance of these orders shall be made by OPs within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt
of the copy of the order failing which complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission u/s
25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

                It is further directed that OP-1 shall process and finalize the fire claim of Rs.4 lacks of the
complainant within 30 days from the receipt of necessary documents as demanded, from the complainant.

Copy of the order be made available to the parties free of cost as per law and thereafter file be consigned
to record room.

(O P GUPTA)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

(S.C.JAIN)

MEMBER