Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President— In this complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 1,60,300/- from the opposite partiesUnited India Insurance Company.

2. The complainant is having a shop known as M/s. Diamond Jewellary Mart’, Broadway at Hubli. He is a jeweller. The complainant obtained an Insurance Policy on 29.2.89, the period of which was from 29.2.89 to 28.2.90. It was a Burglary and House Breaking policy in respect of his shop. The Insurance amount was Rs. 14,55,000/-.

3. It is the case of the complainant that during the night of 15/16th March, 1989 a theft of burglary took place in the said shop. The complainant came to know of this fact in the morning of 16.3.89 and made a report of the occurrence to the police. The police recorded the Mahazar. At the same time the complainant also filed a claim petition with the opposite party. The opposite party repudiated the claim on some untenable grounds. So the complainant filed the complaint seeking sum of Rs. 85,300/- towards the value of the lost articles; Rs. 65,000/- towards the interest and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony.

4. The opposite party filed its version and admitted the fact that a Insurance Policy was issued as averred by the complainant. The opposite party further averred that the goods insured were the goods kept in steel safe cupboards and whereas as per the complaint of the complainant, the articles stolen were kept in glass showcases and so that was not the goods covered under the policy. So the claim of the complainant came to be repudiated.

5. The opposite party further averred that there was no deficiency in service on their part in repudiating the claim of the complainant.

6. During enquiry the complainant filed the affidavit in evidence and got Exts. C.1 to C. 4 marked in evidence.

7. We heard the learned Counsel for the complainant, perused the pleadings and the material on record.

8. Ex. C.1 is the Insurance Policy. The properties insured under the said Insurance Policy read as under :

“On stock of Ornaments of Gold and /or Silver and/or such other metal articles and/or artificial stones and/or Diamonds in Boxes and /or kept in steel safe cupboards whilst stored/lying/kept at shop of 1st class construction building situated at Broadway, Hubli.”

9. The risk covered reads thus :

“Burglary and house breaking”.

10. The complainant has stated in the complaint that the stolen articles were kept in the steel cupboards and show cases which were under locks. Even in the affidavit the complainant has stated that he had stored and displayed valuable articles in safe cupboards.

11. Immediately after the occurrence i.e., in the morning of 16.3.89 the complainant made a complaint of the occurrence to the police as per Ex. C.2, wherein he has stated thus :

“xx xx xx”

12. This shows that the articles that were stolen away, according to the complainant, were the articles that were kept in the show-cases. The policy condition shows that the property that was insured was the property kept in steel safe cupboards and not the property kept in the show-cases.

13. The opposite party the Insurance Company on consideration of this fact that the articles that were stolen away were not the articles from the property insured by the complainant and so repudiated the claim of the complainant.

14. Having regard to these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in repudiating the claim of the complainant.

15. In the result, therefore, this complaint fails and it is dismissed.

16. The parties are directed to pay and bear their own costs.

Complaint dismissed.