Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member and Anup K Thakur, Member
M/s. Crystal Hues Ltd. —Petitioner
versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. —Respondent
Revision Petition No.1189 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 11/11/2016 in Appeal No. 294/2011 of the State Commission Delhi)
Decided on 21.7.2017
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Fateh Pal Singh Chhabra, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Electronic Items are insured specifically within premises of complainant/respondent and not outside premises.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 15, 17, 19 and 21—Insurance—Theft of Laptop during railway travel—Complaint dismissed by State Commission in appeal—There is no allegation in complaint that terms and conditions of insurance policy were neither supplied to petitioner nor he was orally told about the same—Electronic Items are insured specifically within premises of complainant/respondent and not outside premises—Claim of respondent/complainant with respect of theft of Laptop being outside of premises as mentioned in insurance policy, is not covered under terms and conditions of policy—Revision petition dismissed.
Held: We do not find merit in the above contention for the reason that there is no allegation in the complaint that the terms & conditions of insurance policy were neither supplied to the petitioner nor he was orally told about the same. Instead, in para-10 of the complaint it is alleged that the aforesaid condition of the insurance policy is totally unreasonable. From the aforesaid stand taken by the appellant in the complaint, it can be safely inferred that it was never the case of the complainant that he was not aware of the terms & conditions of the contract and terms & conditions of the contract were not supplied to him.
Now, it is to be seen whether or not the State Commission has rightly interpreted the relevant clause of the insurance policy. The relevant clause is reproduced as under:-
“This policy shall apply to the insured items only after successful completion of their performance/acceptance test whereby they are at work or at rest or being dismantled for the purpose of cleaning or overhauling or in the course of aforesaid operations themselves or when being shifted within the premises or during subsequent re-erection”.
State Commission has dealt with the aforesaid clause in para-8 of the impugned order, which is reproduced as under:-
“8. A perusal of the aforesaid condition of the policy shows that it is clearly mentioned that the Electronic Items are insured specifically within the premises of the complainant/respondent and not outside the premises. As the laptop of the respondent/complainant was lost while its MD was travelling to Banglore by the train and that was outside the premises, hence the claim of the respondent/complainant with respect of the theft of the Laptop being outside of the premises as mentionesd in the insurance policy, is not covered under the terms and conditions of the policy. Hence the District Forum has committed a gross error by not considering the aforesaid condition of the policy and wrongly interpreted the meaning of relevant clause of policy. Hence the appeal is allowed and order of the District Forum is set aside and consequently CC No.979/03 stands dismissed.”
We do not find any infirmity in the interpretation of the above clause by the State Commission. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Revision petition is dismissed. (Paras 7 to 10)
Result: Revision Petition dismissed.
Ajit Bharihoke, Presiding Member—This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission, Delhi dated 11.11.2016 in first appeal No.294/2011.
2. Briefly stated, facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that the petitioner filed a consumer complaint in the District Forum, Qutub Institutional Area, New Delhi on the allegations that he had insured several electronic instruments with the opposite party on payment of premium. The insured articles included one laptop. During the subsistence of the insurance contract, the laptop was stolen while Managing Director of the petitioner company was carrying it during his railway travel. Intimation of theft was given to the police station as also the insurance company. Insurance claim was filed. The opposite party insurance company, however, repudiated the claim. Being aggrieved the petitioner raised a consumer dispute by approaching the consumer forum.
3. The opposite party on being served with the notice of the complaint resisted the claim by filing the written statement. The opposite party, however, failed to put in appearance after the filing of written statement. Accordingly, opposite party was proceeded ex-parte.
4. The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party insurance company to pay to the complainant cost of the stolen laptop Rs.2,45,800/- besides Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.
5. The opposite party being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum approached the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission, however, relying upon the terms & conditions of the insurance policy came to the conclusion that the insurance cover under the policy was provided to the electronic items which were within the premises of the complainant company and not outside the premises. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, order of the District Forum was set aside and the complaint was dismissed. Being aggrieved the petitioner has filed the revision petition.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the petitioner was never made aware of the terms & conditions of the insurance policy and only a cover note was provided to the insured.
7. We do not find merit in the above contention for the reason that there is no allegation in the complaint that the terms & conditions of insurance policy were neither supplied to the petitioner nor he was orally told about the same. Instead, in para-10 of the complaint it is alleged that the aforesaid condition of the insurance policy is totally unreasonable. From the aforesaid stand taken by the appellant in the complaint, it can be safely inferred that it was never the case of the complainant that he was not aware of the terms & conditions of the contract and terms & conditions of the contract were not supplied to him.
8. Now, it is to be seen whether or not the State Commission has rightly interpreted the relevant clause of the insurance policy. The relevant clause is reproduced as under:-
“This policy shall apply to the insured items only after successful completion of their performance/acceptance test whereby they are at work or at rest or being dismantled for the purpose of cleaning or overhauling or in the course of aforesaid operations themselves or when being shifted within the premises or during subsequent re-erection”.
9. State Commission has dealt with the aforesaid clause in para-8 of the impugned order, which is reproduced as under:-
“8. A perusal of the aforesaid condition of the policy shows that it is clearly mentioned that the Electronic Items are insured specifically within the premises of the complainant/respondent and not outside the premises. As the laptop of the respondent/complainant was lost while its MD was travelling to Banglore by the train and that was outside the premises, hence the claim of the respondent/complainant with respect of the th
