Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member
M/s B. R. Exports Through its Partner, Mr.Ravneet Bagga —Complainant
versus
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.Through Divisional Office-II & Ors. —Opposite parties
Original Petition No. 215 of 2002
Decided on 1.8.2014
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant :Mr. U. C. Mittal, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. A. K. Raina, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
Surveyor’s report has significant evidentiary value.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Insurance—Theft in shop premises—This is admitted fact that complainant did not disclose facts that same premises were used by other two sister concerns and that two job workers did not return their goods—In a contract of insurance policy, anything which would influence mind of a prudent insurer in deciding, whether to accept or not to accept risk, is a material fact—If proposer has knowledge of such fact, he is obliged to disclose it—Had this fact been disclosed to insurer, it would not have taken risk of insuring one firm in place of three firms and conducted inquiries from job workers at the very start—Property of three concerns are not demarcated—In case a theft takes place in other firms, insurance company would be made to pay for same—Theft was also committed in two other sister concerns—It is difficult to demarcate from which firm theft had been committed—There is no reason to discard report of Surveyor—In absence of ill-will or malice or animosity, report of Surveyor has to be given due weight—Theft had taken place and complainant is entitled to value assessed by Surveyor. (Paras 20, 21, 25 and 26)
Result: Original Petition allowed.
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member —This complaint was filed before this Commission on 19.11.1998, however, as per the prevailing practice at that time, the case was registered in the year 2002, as Original Complaint No.215 of 2002. The Case was put up before the Bench of this Commission, for the first time, on 15.07.2002. This clearly goes to show negligence, inaction and passivity on the part of the Registry. The file did not move an inch for about four years. The practice of deciding few cases and piling up the cases to be decided after 15/20 years’, by the later Judges, was a wrong practice. The very purpose and object of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, stand defeated. Does such fact happens in a District or Civil Court?. We are not aware as to how many such petitions are withheld by the Registry. The Registry is advised to check the files separately and report to the Hon’ble President of this Commission as to how many such cases are pending.
2. M/s. B.R. Exports, the complainant, is a registered partnership firm. It exclusively transacts the business of import and export of emerald jewellery. The complainant firm obtained an insurance policy from M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., OP1. A theft was committed in the premises of the complainant firm, between 23rd-25th December, 1995. The main entrance of the Ram Singh Building is on the Ground Floor. B.R.Exports has got three partners, consisting of father, Sh.Gurbachan Singh Bagga and two sons, Sh. Harmeet Singh Bagga and Sh.Ravneet Singh Bagga. They are engaged in jewellery business in Jaipur. All the three persons have three concerns besides B.R. Exports. They have M/s. Bombay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd, which is engaged in the import and domestic selling of other less-expensive semi-precious stones and jewellery. Thirdly, M/s. Bagga Gems Corporation, which deals in commercial grade stones and jewellery. The first floor of Ram Singh Building, is occupied by the Accounts Offices of the three family concerns. The second floor is occupied by the officers of the three firms, where they stock their inventory of raw materials and finished goods and where the production facility for the cutting and polishing exists is located. One of the rooms is shared by M/s. Bombay Enterprises and M/s. B.R. Exports. The other room houses M/s. Bagga Gems. There is a channel gate at the foot of the staircase from the second floor to the first floor and an iron door separates the office of M/s. Bagga Gems and the office room shared by M/s. B.R.Exports and M/s. Bombay Enterprises.
3. M/s. Bagga Gems stock their inventory comprising of large volumes of rough and finished commercial grade stones and jewellery in the other room on the second floor. In addition to the cutting and polishing of the Emerald Roughs in the premises of the complainant firm, it engages job workers for cutting and polishing the emerald roughs, particularly, when the ordered quantities are in excess of the cutting and polishing capacity of the complainant firm. M/s. Neha Gems and M/s. MG Enterprises are two main job workers with whom the complainant firm have customarily dealings with them.
4. On 08.02.1993, 74,995 carats of emerald roughs for job work were handed over to M/s. Neha Gems. Those were not returned despite several requests made in this context. Like-wise, certain qualities of raw material had been handed over for job work to M/s. MG Jewellers, but those were not returned. Previously, the sum insured was Rs.30.00 lakhs. M/s. Bombay Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., renewed the above said policy for the period between 09.12.1993 and 08.12.1994, but no claims were raised in either of the two years. Subsequently, that policy could not be renewed due to some inadvertence, over-sight and changes in the constitution of the administrative staff which was responsible for getting the insurance policy renewed. The fact that the policy was not renewed came to the knowledge when there was a minor fire in certain electric cables in the neon si
