IMPORTANT POINT
Powers in exercise of revisional jurisdiction should be used only if there is a jurisdictional error or material defect in orders passed by Consumer Fora below.

Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member—This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 15.12.2015, passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 61/2014, “G.B.S. Chauhan versus Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd.”, vide which, while dismissing the appeal, the order dated 2.12.2013, passed by the District Forum in consumer complaint No. 466/2012, filed by the present petitioner/complainant, dismissing the said complaint, was upheld.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant M/s Prince Diamond Jewelleries Private Limited is a company registered under the Companies Act and is engaged in the business of marketing and exporting of metals such as diamond, gold and silver. The complaint has been filed on behalf of the company by G.B.S. Chauhan, Managing Director. The company had obtained a Money Insurance Policy from the Opposite Party (OP) United India Insurance Company, by which the money while in transit, had been insured by the OP Company; the total coverage under the policy being Rs.1 crore. On 17.11.2011 at about 7:15 PM, G.B.S. Chauhan, Managing Director of the company visited the showroom in his Innova car [DL-7CA 3567]. The said official collected Rs.13 lakh from the locker of the show-room, put it in a briefcase and placed the briefcase in the car, which was parked in the front side of the showroom. At that time, he noticed that some important documents had been left in the shop. He came back to the shop after putting the briefcase in the car. Both the briefcase and the car were properly locked. As stated in the consumer complaint, the petitioner instructed the security guard Tajinder Dua to keep an eye on the locked car. After some time, the security guard came inside the showroom and stated that the right side glass of the car had been broken and the briefcase containing Rs.13 lakh was missing from the car. Intimation about the incident was given to the Police as well as to the Insurance Company. The Police registered an FIR bearing no. 333 dated 17.11.11 under section 379/461 I.P.C. The OP Insurance Company deputed a surveyor Atul Kapoor & Co. for assessment of the loss. The said surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.13 lakh, but submitted a report concluding that the loss was not covered under the policy, as it had occurred in an unattended vehicle. According to the complainant, the car was just 10 ft. away from the show-room and their employee Tajinder Dua was keeping an eye on the vehicle and hence, the allegation of leaving the vehicle unattended had not been substantiated. It is also contended by the petitioner/complainant that clause V & IX of the Policy, upon which the OP Insurance Company had relied while repudiating the claim, were not applicable, as these had not been notified to the complainant. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OP Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.13 lakh to them alongwith interest @18% p.a. compounded annually and also to award compensation of Rs.2 lakh for mental harassment etc.

3. The complaint was resisted by the OP Insurance Company by filing a written reply before the District Forum, in which they stated that the complainant did not fall within the definition of ‘consumer’, as the Policy had been taken for a commercial purpose. The OP referred to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Laxmi Engineering Works vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute” [1195 AIR 1428], in this regard. The OP also stated that the policy was not applicable in the case of theft of money from an unattended vehicle. The claim had, therefore, been rightly repudiated, keeping in view the terms and conditions and various clauses of the Insurance Policy.

4. The District Forum, after taking into account the averments of the parties, dismissed t