Back
CHATTISGARH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
V.K. Agarwal, President, Veena Misra and R.S. Awasthi, Members
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANR. - Appellants
Versus
ANIL GIRULKAR - Respondent
Appeal No. 177 of 2006
Decided on : 22-05-2007
Mr. Harshad Vyas, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Rakesh Puri, Advocate, for the Respondent
The terms of the insurance policy govern the contract between the parties, and the court must abide by the defined expressions in the policy when determining coverage.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Insurance Claim - 1986 - Section 15 - Clause 1B(d)
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's insured Nokia cell phone was stolen, and the insurer repudiated the claim. The District Forum found in favor of the complainant, but the appellate court allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.
Finding of the Court:
The terms of the insurance policy clearly excluded simple theft of the handset from coverage, as it required the theft to be accompanied by actual or threatened force. The court applied the terms of the policy and found that the complainant was not entitled to redressal from the insurer.
Issues: Interpretation of insurance policy terms, coverage of theft under the policy, application of legal principles from previous court decisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the terms of the insurance policy and the legal principles established in previous court decisions to determine that the complainant was not entitled to coverage for the theft of the handset.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside, dismissing the complaint.
ORDER
V.K. Agarwal, President - This appeal, under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 13.4.2006 in complaint No. 144/2005 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called the District Forum for short) directing the appellant-insurer to pay to the complainant/respondent a sum of Rs. 3,700 with interest @ 9% payable from 2.4.2005. Besides, compensation of Rs. 2,000 and cost of the complaint of Rs. 500 was also awarded.
2. The relevant facts not in dispute are, that the complainant purchased a Nokia cell phone for Rs. 3,700 on 3.7.2004, which was duly insured by the appellant-insurer
3. The complainant's allegations were that the said Handset was stolen from his shirt pocket at about 8 p.m. on 31.3.2005. He lodged police report of the incident on 1.4.2005 with Police Station, Purani Basti, Raipur. He also put up a claim with the appellant-insurer on 2.4.2005. Relevant documents were also furnished to the appellant-insurer. However, the complainant's claim was repudiated by the appellant-insurer, by their letter dated 30.4.2005. Hence, the complaint.
4. The complaint was resisted by the appellant-insurer. According to the appellant-insurer, special contingency policy was issued covering the risk, under the terms specified therein. It was averred that the risk of theft as alleged by the complainant was not covered under the policy. Hence, the complainant was not entitled to any relief under the policy.
5. The District Forum held that the repudiation of the complainant's claim, by the appellant-insurer, amounted to deficiency in service and accordingly the claim of the complainant was allowed and compensation etc. was awarded as noticed above.
6. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant basically was that the risk of the theft as alleged to have occurred, was not covered, under the terms of the policy. The learned Counsel in the above context referred to the terms and conditions of the policy. The relevant condition is in Clause 1B(d) of the terms and conditions of the policy, which is as below:
"Theft of Handset from any public place/public conveyance except where the Handset is taken by actual or threatened force. In all the above instances, a claim shall be entertained only if accompanied by a copy of a registered FIR duly numbered, signed and stamped (First Information Report) to the local Police Station pertaining to such theft of the Handset."
8. It was submitted by the learned Counsel for appellant-insurer was that the theft of the said Handset from public place was not covered under the policy, unless it was accompanied by actual or threatened force. It was further submitted that the claim was entertainable only if it was accompanied by a copy of a registered FIR duly numbered, signed and stamped, pertaining to such theft. It was submitted that since it was the case of simple theft without any actual or threatened force; the same was expressly excluded under the above quoted condition of the policy.
9. Learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent, however, supported the impugned order.
10. We have considered the submissions as above. It is clear that the policy's terms 1B(d) clearly exclude theft of the Handset unless it was taken away by use of actual or threatened force. In the instant case, the complainant's averments in the complaint itself are that somebody picked his pocket and removed the Handset. That being so, it appears that no force-whether actual or threatened was exercised by miscreant. The risk as above, therefore, appears to be excluded, under the policy.
11. In the above context the decision of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal, 2005 (1) CPR 64 (SC), may be referred to in the said case:
"It is possible that an insurer may sustain loss in technical terms of the criminal law, but no relief can be given to him unless
