ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, President
1. This appeal is by the Insurance Company which was opposite party before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. State Commission allowed the complaint of the complainant-respondents by order dated 25.6.2001 and directed as under :
“In the result, we allow this complaint. The opposite party, Insurance Company is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 11,88,000/-with interest at 12% p.a. from 6.4.1996 till payment to complainant No. 2, the Karnataka Bank Ltd. If there is any excess amount after settling the claim of the Bank, the balance amount should be given to complainant No. 1. The said direction should be carried out by the Insurance Company within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. The respondent Insurance Company also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony suffered by complainant No. 1 and with a further direction to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards costs.”
2. Complainant-Proprietor of M/s. Acharya Distributions was having three types of insurance policies which were taken from the appellant-Insurance Company and these were Shopkeepers Insurance Policy, Burglary Insurance Policy and Fire Policy ‘B’. It was the case of the complainant that during the subsistence of these policies dacoity took place in his shop premises on 23.9.1995 which was committed by one Dr. Sridhar Holla and his accomplices. A complaint was lodged with the Policy Station who registered a case for offences under Sections 448, 143, 147, 506, 380 read with 149 of Indian Penal Code. Sections 380 and 506 of Indian Penal Code are reproduced hereunder :
“380. Theft in dwelling house, etc.–Whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
506. Punishment for criminal intimidation–Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.–and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an office punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment, for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.”
3. Complainant’s case was registered on 5.10.1995. It was submitted by Mr. Kishore Rawat, learned Counsel of the Insurance Company that no complaint was immediately filed with the police which created doubt on the veracity of the whole incident. It was also submitted that there was a business rivalry between the complainant and said Holla and that they were also having some business dealings in respect of which there were some litigations also between them. Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned Counsel for the complainants submitted that a complaint was sent to the police on 25.10.1995 and a copy of which had been brought on record.
4. Complainant made a claim for Rs. 15.00 lakhs on account of loss sustained by him. Insurance Company did appoint Surveyor who submitted his report on 14.7.1997 almost after 20 months of the date of crime and lodging of claim by the complainant to the Insurance Company. Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company quantified the loss at Rs. 11.88 lakhs. However, Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that it was not true. Evidence was led by the parties before the State Commission. In support of his case complainant filed his affidavit and also filed record of the proceedings in the Criminal Court. On the other hand, Insurance Company filed affidavit of its Administrative Officer attaching therewith report of the Surveyor. No affidavit of the Surveyor was filed testifying as to what his conclusions were. It may be noted that Surveyor had raised certain doubts about the correctness of the incident. The fact remains that the State Commission found that not only that FIR was registered by the police but after investigation a challan was filed in the Court of Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate and thereafter the case was committed to the Court of Sessions as it was a session trial. It could, therefore, not be said that the complaint lodged by the complainant with the police could not be true. Once it is held that a dacoity was committed, necessary consequences that would follow and loss as arrived at by the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company would become due and payable to the complainant.
5. State Commission had minutely examined the whole record of the case and also referred to various sections of the Indian Penal Code with which Holla was charged for the offences committed by him and these offences do make out offences of dacoity and other offences. State Commission was, therefore, of the view that it could not be said that the crime which was committed causing business loss to the complainant would not be covered by the policies in question. It is not disputed that the policies in question did cover the case of the complainant but the contention of the Insurance Company was that the case was not true which has not been accepted by the State Commission.
We do not find any reason to take a different view than taken by the State Commission. Accordingly order of the State Commission is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed with costs which we assess at Rs. 2,500/-.