Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member and Vinay Kumar, Member
Prabodh J. Kothari —Petitioner
versus
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
& Ors. — Respondents
Revision Petition No. 1561 of 2012
(From the order dated 15.12.2011 in First Appeal No. A/11/310 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai)
Decided on 28.2.2013
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. A.A. Pirani, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 and 3:Mr. Arvind Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2: Nemo.
IMPORTANT POINT
Period of limitation would run again from date of repudiation and would not remain confined to date of loss.
Headnote:(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 24-A—Complaint—Limitation—House holder’s Insurance Policy—Theft of jewellery—Part settlement of insurance claim—Recurring cause of action—Cause of action first arose when burglary took place—Bundle of facts begins with incident of burglary, goes through assessment of loss by Surveyor and culminates in partial acceptance together with substantial rejection of claim of complainant in letter of repudiation issued by OP—Period of limitation would run again from date of repudiation and would not remain confined to date of loss—Complaint was not barred by limitation and should have been entertained by District Forum. (Paras 9 and 10)
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—House holder’s Insurance Policy—Theft of jewellery—Part settlement of insurance claim—Though loss of jewellery was not initially reported, it was in fact added to Police report and was a part of subsequent investigation by Police—This development was within knowledge of surveyor however, he chose not to include the claim in his final recommendation—“House-holders Insurance Policy” covering risk under various heads including fire, burglary, housing breaking etc.—Insured under such policy is covered as a “house-holder” and not just as an “individual”—Decision of the OP to exclude jewellery from admissible claim, is nothing but an act of arbitrariness—It amounts to deficiency of service—Impugned order set aside—Order of District Forum allowing complaint affirmed. (Paras 9 to 13)
Vinay Kumar, Member—The complaint of the revision petitioner, Mr Prabodh J. Kothari (hereinafter referred to as the complainant or RP) was partly allowed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mumbai. But, it was dismissed in the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which allowed the appeal of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, (hereinafter referred to as the OP or respondent). This revision petition is therefore, filed by the complainant, challenging the order of the State Commission.
2. The consumer dispute in these proceedings had arisen from an incident of house breaking and burglary. The loss, according to the complainant, was of Rs.18,16,192/- which included a claim of Rs.16,96,092/- towards loss of jewellery. The OP admitted the claim partly and paid Rs 31,186/- only. The failure of the OP to allow the full claim of the complainant under the House holder’s Insurance Policy, led to filing of the consumer complaint.
3. The District Forum considered the case of the two sides and directed the OP to pay an additional sum of Rs 13,38,429/- together with interest and compensation. The view taken by the District Forum was that—
“Surveyor/assessor reported that only the jewellery items belonging to the complainant’s wife, by name Ramila Kothari; which were stolen were included in the list, schedule attached to the insurance policy. Then, on internal page (06) of his final survey report, the surveyor/assessor furnished a table of ‘All Risks’ portion of the insurance policy and there, the surveyor/assessor mentioned that items worth an amount in the sum of Rs.33,000/- belonging to Mr. Prabodh Kothari- the complainant herein; were not in the list attached to the insurance policy and the items worth an amount in sum of Rs.13,38,429/-belonging to the Complainant’s wife, Smt. Ramila Kothari, were included in the insurance policy, but she was a person not mentioned in the insurance policy. On this basis, the surveyor/assessor observed that, that was not the liability under the insurance policy.
16. Here, we may observe that admittedly and as transpired form the survey report, Smt. Ramila Kothari; is the Complainant’s wife. She has been described such in the first as well as second survey report. Items recorded against her name in the table at page (06) were the items included in the insurance policy. However, the surveyor proposed to disallow the claim only on the ground that she was not ‘the Insured’ under the insurance policy. Obviously, those items must have gone under the name of the Complainant, since he was the proposer/Insured. While filling in the proposal form and taking the insurance policy, if the Complainant has furnished details of the ornaments of his wife, claiming the same as his own, no fault could be found with the same. Interpretation of the surveyor that the jewellery items belonging to the Complainant’s wife were not belonging to the Complainant, as the Insured, was perverse inasmuch as in the final survey report under Clause No. 4.2) thereof, while giving list of the insured’s family members, the surveyor/assessor had mentioned status of Smt. Ramila Kothari, as the Complainant’s wife.”
4. As already noted the State Commission allowed the appeal of the OP and set aside the award of the District Forum on two grounds. First, that the complaint was filed in 2007 when the claim related to a burglary of 2001. Secondly, that there was no deficiency of service. The Commission has observed that—
“3. It is not in dispute that when the event of theft/burglary/ house-breaking had taken place at the house of the insured (the Complainant) in between 21/7/2001 to 23/7/2001. Therefore, in view of decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd ~ III-(2009)-CPJ-75-(SC), the cause of action arose on occurring of the said event and since the consumer complaint was admittedly filed on 7/4/2007 and that too, without any applicatio
