ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been filed against the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi dated 15.03.2002.

2. The respondent had a business establishment at Vellappad in Trissur District in the State of Kerala. It took a Jeweller’s Block Policy for Rs. 1,15,00,000/-. During the currency of the policy, the complainant-respondent lodged a claim with the appellant for the loss of gold ornament weighing 587.870 grams. The claim was repudiated by the appellant on the ground that the loss of gold was occasioned as it was in the custody of an apprentice, who was not an employee.

The relevant clause in the Insurance Policy stated;

“S. 11(a) property insured whilst in the custody of the insured, his partner or his employees”.

3. The question, therefore, is whether an apprentice is an employee.

4. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held that an apprentice is an employee because Section 2 (6) of the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act defines an employee to include an apprentice. The National Commission has also relied on the definition in the Employees State Insurance Act and some other enac