Facts:

The complainant, M/s. Cemcon Track Industries, is a partnership firm engaged in manufacturing railway switches, plates and other ancillary railway components. The firm operated a factory at Village Mundlana, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonipat, Haryana. Its stocks were insured under a burglary insurance policy issued by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. The firm also held a separate fire insurance policy.

According to the complainant, a burglary took place at its factory premises and a substantial quantity of raw materials, scrap, machinery parts and other goods was stolen. On May 7, 2013, the factory manager, Ram Kumar Patwa, lodged an FIR with the police, reporting that unknown persons had allegedly entered the premises by creating holes at several places in the boundary walls and removing goods from the factory. Certain items were also reportedly found scattered outside the premises.

On May 11, 2013, the complainant submitted an insurance claim along with details of the stolen materials and supporting bills and receipts. The insurance company appointed a surveyor, M/s. Ajay Mahajan, to investigate the incident and assess the loss. The surveyor submitted a report dated September 4, 2013.

The surveyor observed that the factory had remained closed since December 23, 2012, and that the alleged theft appeared to have continued over a period of approximately two to three months. The report also questioned the adequacy of the security arrangements, noting that only one guard was deployed at a time and that the holes in the walls had allegedly remained undetected for an extended period.

On October 11, 2013, Bajaj Allianz repudiated the insurance claim, citing alleged negligence in securing the premises and violations of the policy conditions. The complainant challenged the repudiation before the NCDRC, alleging deficiency in service by the insurance company.

Contentions of the Insurance Company:

Bajaj Allianz maintained that the complainant had failed to take reasonable precautions to protect the insured premises. It argued that the factory had remained closed for several months and that the alleged theft continued for two to three months without being detected, despite the presence of security guards.

The insurance company relied on the surveyor's findings regarding inadequate security arrangements and alleged violations of the policy conditions. It contended that the complainant had not produced sufficient evidence to discredit the survey report or establish deficiency in service on the insurer's part.

Observation and decision:

The NCDRC observed that the four holes in the factory's boundary walls could not have remained unnoticed for three to four months despite the presence of security guards. It held that the security arrangements were inadequate and that the complainant had failed to satisfactorily explain the prolonged theft or rebut the surveyor's findings.

The Commission further observed that the non-availability of the original insurance proposal form did not excuse the failure to maintain adequate security. Finding no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the insurance company, the Commission dismissed the complaint.