IMPORTANT POINT
Exception clause should be clearly made known to policy holder.

Mrs. Vineeta Rai Member—Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Petitioner’) has filed this revision petition being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State commission’) in Appeal No.384/ 2002 which was decided in favour of Brahmdeo Panjiyara, Respondent herein, who was the original complainant before the District Forum.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Respondent was proprietor of M/s. B.P. Trading an authorized distributor of Indane Gas and had taken a Multi-Perils Insurance Policy for L.P. Gas (LPG) Dealers from the Petitioner/Insurance Company for an assured sum of Rs. 7 lakh for the cost of cylinders and its contents, Rs. 1 lakh against Burglary and/or House Breaking, etc. On 4.1.1997, one Binay Kumar Mishra an employee of the Respondent committed theft and took away 224 gas cylinders from the Respondent premises. Respondent lodged an FIR against the said employee and also informed the Petitioner/Insurance Company about this incident. Petitioner appointed a Surveyor on 16.1.1997 to enquire into the incident. The claim was initially treated as “closed” on the grounds that the Surveyor was not given the necessary documents by the Respondent and thereafter though the Respondent supplied the necessary documents and requested for reopening of his claim, no reply was received from the Petitioner / Insurance Company. Aggrieved by this, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Petitioner be directed to pay the Respondent Rs. 4,03,200 being the loss caused to him because of theft of the cylinders @ Rs. f 1,800 per cylinder along with litigation costs and other reliefs.

3. The above contentions were denied by. the Petitioner who stated that in the first instance the file had been closed because certain papers asked for from the Respondent were not supplied to its Surveyor and even after the papers were supplied the claim could not be in demnified as per Exception Clause in the insurance policy when an employee of the insured or member or partner of the Insured or a member of the Insured’s family is concerned as principal or accessory in commissioning of the crime. Since admittedly, theft was committed by an employee of the Respondent, the claim was rightly repudiated.

4. The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint and directed the Petitioner to pay Rs. 2,01,600 (@ Rs. 900 per cylinder) alongwith interest @ 12% per annum after 3 months from the date of filing of the claim till realization and Rs. 1,000 as litigation cost. The District Forum further directed that any amount if recovered by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Gas over and above Rs. 900 should be refunded to the Respondent.

5. Aggrieved by this order, Petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal on the ground that the Respondent was never informed by the Petitioner about policy condition which included the Exception Clause since it was not a part of the main policy supplied by the Petitioner and, therefore, Respondent could not be bound by any condition or exception which were not explained or made aware at the time of the parties entering into an insurance contract.

Hence, the present revision petition.

6. Counsel for both parties made oral submissions.. Counsel for Petitioner reiterated the fact that the entire insurance policy was made available to the Respondent and since it was a contractual agreement, Respondent was bound by it and cannot claim ignorance of its provisions. He further contended that the Exclusion Clause makes it very clear that the claim could not be indemnified if the theft was committed (inter alia) by an employee of the Respondent which happened in the instant case.

7. Counsel for Respondent stated that the Fora below which are Courts of facts had after considering the evidence on record conclud