Back
2012(2) CPR 331 (NC)
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
R.C. Jain, Presiding Member and S.K. Naik, Member
M/s Aerolux India Pvt. Ltd Through its Director Shri Rohit Kumar —Complainant
versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. — Opposite Party
Original Petition No. 365 of 2002
Decided on 13.4.2012
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant :Mr. Anupam Kumar Jha, Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Gogna, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party:Mr. Kishore Rawat, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Insurance Company cannot be asked to indemnify peril arising out of own negligence of insured.
Headnote:(A) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Insurance—Theft of imported materials—Claim for compensation of Rs. 29,51,105/- with pendent lite 24% interest—Burglary (Business Premises) Insurance Policies—Claim repudiated on ground that loss was due to systematic pilferage by workers—Complainant has not been able to make out a case to support his claim, inasmuch as he has failed to take reasonable care to protect insured premises and stock of raw materials kept therein and has further failed to comply with mandatory and specific conditions of policy relating to immediate notice of loss to police and to Insurance Company—There has not been any violent and forcible entry of any outsider/burglar to commit theft—Rather there is every possibility about involvement of his own staff in commission of offence—Complaint dismissed. (Paras 14 to 21)
(B) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Jurisdiction of Forum—Plea of Insurance Company that dispute involves complicated question of facts and voluminous evidence and matter be relegated to civil court does not carry conviction—Dispute mainly involves examination of terms and conditions stipulated in their policy and whether there has been any breach thereof and this is a matter which is very much within domain of State Commission. (Para 14)
S.K. Naik, Member— M/s Aerolux India Pvt. Ltd., a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, engaged primarily in the business of ‘window dressing’ including the manufacturing of ‘venetian blinds’, have filed this consumer complaint under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party, the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., seeking a direction from this Commission to direct them to pay a sum of Rs.29,51,105/- with pendent lite interest @ 24% per annum on the said sum of Rs.29,51,105 from the date of signing/verification or from the date of filing of the present complaint till the realization thereof.
2. Facts, in brief, are that one of the main raw materials used for the manufacturing of ‘venetian blinds’ is aluminium coils/slats, which is imported by the complainant from the United States. The imported stock of the aluminium coils/slats along with other raw materials, such as line fabric, PVC cloth, wooden, plastic and metal components, drapery rods etc., is stored in his factory premises at 122, Udyog Vihar, Phase-I, Gurgaon. In order to secure the raw materials from any untoward incident of theft, burglary etc., they had obtained two Burglary (Business Premises) Insurance Policies covering the risk upto Rs.2.50 Crores from the opposite party/Insurance Company. During the currency of the said insurance policies, between the period July, 1999 and August, 1999 they noticed shortage in the stock of raw material in factory premises. Initially, they estimated that at least 100 aluminium coils/slats were missing. In order to verify the cause of shortage, they appointed a private detective agency by the name of ‘The Spy Masters’ to investigate into the episode of theft. However, the private detective agency’s investigation was met with some resistance from the employees of the complainant and had to be abandoned. Thereafter, the complainant lodged a complaint on the 24th of August, 1999 with the Udyog Vihar Police Station, Gurgaon, requesting for a probe into the matter. The police authorities sometimes on the 24th/25th of October, 1999 arrested one Jagat Singh @ Ajay Kumar in connection with the theft of the aluminium coils/slats, who confessed to have committed the theft by cutting some iron grills, which he also claims to have welded them later in order to prevent detection. The complainant thereafter on 27th of October, 1999 informed the opposite party/Insurance Company about the incident, who promptly appointed M/s Ajay Chopra & Associates, Surveyors-cum-Loss Assessors, to survey and assess the loss and also appointed M/s So-Men Media Pvt. Ltd. to investigate into the matter. While the investigators submitted their report on the 22nd of July, 2000, M/s Ajay Chopra & Associates, the surveyors, submitted their report on 14th of August, 2000 and assessed the net loss at Rs. 4,70,640/-. M/s Ajay Chopra & Associates, the surveyors, vide their letter dated 1st of November, 1999 had requested the complainant to submit a number of documents, including the burglary claim form duly filled in so as to proceed further in the matter, pursuant to which the complainant had submitted a claim of Rs.17,87,500/-. Thereafter the complainant pursued the matter with the opposite party/Insurance Company by writing a number of representations and reminders for the settlement of the claim at an early date. Finally, a legal notice dated 16th of December, 2000 was issued, which was replied to by the opposite party/Insurance Company vide their letter dated 22nd of January, 2001, to which even a rejoinder was filed but the opposite party/Insurance Company rather than considering the claim of the complainant favourably repudiated the same vide their letter dated 2nd of February, 2001. Aggrieved thereupon that this complaint has been filed by the complainant, seeking a direction as already stated above.
3. On notice being issued, the opposite party/Insurance Company has resisted the compl
