Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
J.M. Malik, Presiding Member and Vinay Kumar, Member
RAJ RANI - Appellant
Versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Respondent
Revision Petition No. 2162 of 2012 against Order dated 9.1.2012 in First Appeal No. 1183 of 2010 of State Commission, Haryana
Decided on : 14-08-2012
Mr. Rohit Dheer, Advocate, for the Appellant; None., for the Respondent
The determination of compensation should be within the limits set out in the insurance policy, and the distinction between theft from the showcase and theft from the safe is crucial in determining insurable benefits.
Headnote:
Insurance Claim - Jewellers Block Insurance Policy - Section 420 IPC - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d), Section 2(1)(o), Section 14(1)(d), Section 21(b) - The court discussed the interpretation of the insurance policy, the scope of coverage, and the liability of the insurance company in case of theft during business hours. The court emphasized that the compensation should be within the limits set out in the policy and highlighted the distinction between theft from the showcase and theft from the safe.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's insurance claim under a Jewellers Block Insurance Policy was repudiated by the respondent. The District Forum allowed the complaint, but the State Commission partly allowed the appeal by reducing the awarded amount. The petitioner sought restoration of the District Forum's order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the revision petition lacked merit and dismissed it, confirming the State Commission's order.
Issues: Interpretation of the insurance policy, scope of coverage, liability of the insurance company, determination of compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The compensation should be within the limits set out in the policy. The distinction between theft from the showcase and theft from the safe is crucial in determining insurable benefits.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed, and the State Commission's order was confirmed.
ORDER
Vinay Kumar, Member - The revision petitioner Mrs. Raj Rani, Proprietor of Sujan Jewellers, Ambala has challenged the decision of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No. 1183 of 2010. The petitioner was the Complainant before District Forum, Ambala. Her consumer complaint related to an insurance claim under a Jewellers Block Insurance Policy, which was repudiated by the respondent United India Insurance Company Ltd. But, her consumer complaint was allowed by the District Forum. However, the appeal of the respondent/united India Insurance Company was partly allowed by the State Commission by reducing the awarded amount from Rs. 4,47,940 to Rs. 2,00,000. The Complainant has now filed this revision petition seeking restoration of the order of the District Forum.
2. The revision petition has been filed with a delay of 71 days, which has been explained in an application filed by the petitioner, seeking its condonation. Considering the explanation, the delay has been condoned and the matter taken up for consideration on merits.
3. The case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that her business of Gold Smithy and Jewellery was insured under a Jewellers Block Insurance Policy taken w.e.f. 8.11.2007 for a sum of Rs. 7,00,000. This comprised the property in the display windows to the extent of Rs. 2,00,000 and property locked in the safe to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000. The protection under the policy was against fire, explosion, lightning, burglary and theft. As per the consumer complaint:
"That on 9.10.2008 at about 10:30 a.m., the son of complainant Jitender opened the shop and there he and his servant were present. Then there, two ladies and one man came to the shop of complainant. They said that they have to purchase Ear Gold Topus. The son of complainant Jitender showed them many stock box to them. They told the son of complainant to show the topus by putting into box. They were also shown gold chains on their demand. The son of complainant was showing the gold jewelleries to them, at once one unknown person came there who told him that he is in hurry and he wanted to see Silver Chutkias. The servant Jiwan who was present there along with Jitender showed him Chutkia and were talking to him and after obtaining the price of the Chutkia, he put the money in the cash box. Then just on that time, those two ladies and both the men left the shop. On this, the son of complainant found that 24 Gold Chains (weighing 500 Grams) tied in one handle were missing which were kept there as the same were being shown to them by him. The son of complainant searched all corners of the shop and have made full satisfaction to this belief that those 24 Gold Chains have been stolen by those persons who were seeing the chains and that fellow man must have joined them in conspiracy to cause theft of chains by fraudulent means."
4. According to the Complainant, an FIR with the police was filed on 10.10.2008. It was registered but the police eventually filed an Untraced Report. The respondent Insurance Company repudiated the claim in their letter of 15.4.2009 on the following grounds:
"1. That the reported loss of twenty-four numbers of gold chains on 9.10.2008 by way of cheating (Section 420, IPC) does not fall within the scope and purview of the insurance policy that only covers the theft loss committed by the use of force/house breaking that is missing in the present case.
2. That your above stated claim is also not maintainable/payable since the Company is not liable to pay any claim unless the policy in respect of any jewellery articles kept in any drawer that provides coverage for jewellery items kept only in the safe and display countre."
5. We have examined the record submitted by the revision petitioner and heard his Counsel Mr. Rohit Dheer. The revision petition itself is focussed on re-opening questions of facts, without being able to give any substantive basis for challenging the findings. Thus, a mention is made
