IMPORTANT POINT
‘Under-Insurance’ and ‘averaging out’ explained.

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta J.

1. This appeal filed by the complainant/consumer is directed against the order dated 29.09.2014 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘the National Commission’), New Delhi, disposing of the revision petition filed by the parties and also against the order dated 22.02.2016 disposing of the review petition filed by the appellant.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant had first purchased a householder insurance policy from the Oriental Insurance Company (‘the Insurance Company’ for short) on 23.12.2000. This policy was renewed till 22.12.2005. As per this policy the coverage of articles/items in the house of the appellant was “as per list”. It is not disputed that thereafter the Insurance Company discontinued “as per list” policies and instead started issuing policies for consolidated amounts. The original policy had expired on 22.12.2005 and fresh policy as per new scheme was taken out on 19.01.2006 and this was renewed from time to time. The last renewal was from 19.01.2007 to 18.01.2008.

3. The appellant had gone to the United Kingdom. Some time, between 27.01.2008 to 30.01.2008, a burglary took place inside the premises of the appellant, and he was informed about the same by a neighbor on 31.01.2008. The appellant requested his nephew to inform the Insurance Company and an FIR was also registered with the Mehrauli Police Station in South Delhi. The Insurance Company was also informed about the burglary on 31.01.2008 or on the next day. The police could not trace out the crime.

4. The Insurance Company first offered a sum of Rs. 3,500/- to the appellant sometime in November, 2008 which he refused to accept. He, thereafter, met certain higher officials of the Insurance Company and an amount of Rs.29,920/- was offered to him. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a claim before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (for short ‘the District Forum’), which was disposed of by the District Forum on the ground that the articles mentioned therein were not mentioned in the list. Thereafter, the appellant filed an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘the State Commission’) which was allowed on 15.01.2014 and he was awarded a sum of Rs.4,03,150/-.

5. Revision petitions were filed both by the appellant claiming interest and compensation and by the Insurance Company against the order of the State Commission. The main ground in the petition filed by the Insurance Company was that a large number of items which had been claimed to be stolen were not insured and there was a lot of under-insurance. The National Commission held that once the appellant had supplied a list of articles for the first policy, if there was any change he should have filed a fresh list and since a large number of articles were not mentioned in the list the claimant was only entitled to an amount of Rs.21,000/- towards the value of stolen gold articles; Rs.5,929/- towards the depreciated value of Citizen watch; Rs.7,000/- for repair of door latches etc.; and Rs.16,000/- towards the value of stolen clothes after making appropriate deduction for under-insurance of clothing. The complainant was also awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- towards the cost of litigation etc. The appellant filed an SLP before this Court and he was granted liberty to file a review petition before the National Commission mainly on the ground that the policy of 2008-2009 was not considered by the National Commission.

6. The National Commission in the review petition took into consideration the fact that the new insurance policy did not require a list of items to be given. It, thereafter, awarded amounts under various heads as follows:-

i) Jewellery and valuables - Claimant claimed that the jewellery lost was worth Rs.1,84,150/- but the insurance package was only for Rs.1,00,500/-. The National Commission ordered the Insurance Company to pay the amount after making adjustment f