Back
GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Atul Vakil and J.Y. Shukla, Members
SOMNATH TRADING COMPANY - Appellant
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD AND ORS - Respondent
Complaint No. 94 of 2015
Decided on : 29-01-2018
Jaimin R Dave, Adv., Mitesh L Rangras, Adv.
The loss to the property was covered under the policy, and the opponent No. 1's decision to repudiate the claim was deemed not proper and legal.
Headnote:
Insurance - Jewellers Block Insurance Policy - Section III of the policy covers property insured in transit when in custody of Aangadiya - Claim for loss of property covered under the policy - Opponent No. 1's decision to repudiate the claim not proper and legal - Complainant entitled to claim amount of Rs. 51,69,129 with 7% interest - Cost of complaint awarded at Rs. 5,000
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a partnership firm doing jewellery and bullion trading, had taken Jewellers Block Insurance Policy from opponent No. 1. During the policy period, four gold bars purchased by the complainant were looted while in transit by Aangadiya. The complainant informed the opponent No. 1 about the incident and submitted all necessary documents for the claim. However, the opponent No. 1 repudiated the claim as no claim, citing non-submission of required documents. The complainant filed a complaint seeking reimbursement of the loss and compensation for mental and physical harassment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the loss to the property was covered under the policy and established the fact of robbery. The complainant had submitted all necessary and relevant documents for deciding the claim. The opponent No. 1's decision to repudiate the claim was deemed not proper and legal. The court partly allowed the complaint, directing opponent No. 1 to pay Rs. 51,69,129 to the complainant with 7% interest and awarded a cost of Rs. 5,000 for the complaint.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the coverage of the loss under the policy, submission of necessary documents for the claim, and the opponent No. 1's decision to repudiate the claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the loss to the property was covered under the policy, the fact of robbery was established, and the complainant had submitted all necessary and relevant documents for deciding the claim. The opponent No. 1's decision to repudiate the claim was deemed not proper and legal.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the complaint, directing opponent No. 1 to pay Rs. 51,69,129 to the complainant with 7% interest and awarded a cost of Rs. 5,000 for the complaint. The complaint was dismissed against the opponent Nos. 2 and 3 with no order as to cost.
ORDER
Atul Vakil, Presiding Member. - Brief facts giving rise to this complaint are as under:
(a) The complainant Somnath Trading Company is a partnership firm doing business of jewellery and Bullion trading at Rajkot. Considering risk involved in the business, the complainant had taken Jewellers Block Insurance Policy from opponent No. 1 Oriental Insurance Company, Rajkot in the year 2010. The policy was renewed from time-to-time. The policy in question was for the period from 19.2.2013 to 18.2.2014. The policy No. is 142200/48/2013/14657. The complainant had paid premium of Rs. 76,517 for the said policy. The policy in question was also covering loss on account of property in transit by Aangadiya. During the policy period on 1.7.2013, the complainant had purchased four gold bars each weighing one kg from Zaveri & Company and Amrapali Industries at Ahmedabad. The two gold bars weighing two kgs. were purchased from Zaveri & Company vide invoice No. 9771/13-14 for Rs. 50,72,220 while another two gold bars weighing 2 kgs were purchased from Amrapali Industries vide invoice No. A1L/G/1436 for Rs. 52,66,039 making total amount of Rs. 1,03,38,259. The complainant had made payment of these gold bars to the sellers on 1.7.2013. The above said gold bars were to be delivered at Rajkot and so the above said two sellers dispatched those four gold bars through opponent No. 3 M/s Hareshkumar Laxmandas Company (hereinafter referred to as Aangadiya). The Aangadiya had issued receipts to Zaveri & Company and Amrapaii Industries bearing receipt Nos. 571 and 218 respectively. When the gold bars being transported in Eicher Tempo bearing RT.I. No. GJ.3.AW-3977, the tempo was looted on highway near highway near Bagodara around 1.00 a.m. on 2nd July, 2013 by some unidentified persons. The gold worth Rs. 23,09,65,702 which included the above said four gold bars of the complainant were stolen around 1.00 a.m. on 2nd July, 2013. FIR regarding the incident of loot was lodged with Bagodara Police Station by one Dineshbhai Shambhibhai Parmar, a driver of the Eicher Tempo. On knowing about the incidence of robbery, the complainant informed the opponent No. 1 by writing a letter dated 2.7.2013. The complainant also sent intimation to the Bagodara Police Station about the loss of their goods in the said incident. The police recorded statement of Ganeshbhai Panchabhai Patel owner of the Aangadiya who acknowledged that four gold bars each weighing one beg of the complainant were stolen in the incident. Meanwhile, the complainant received a letter dated 8th July, 2013 from opponent No. 2, surveyor of opponent No. 1 asking the complainant to furnish certain documents such as FIR, Panchnama of the abundant truck, statement given by owner of the Aangadiya, report of loading of goods on the Eicher Tempo on 1.7.2013 for the purpose of processing the claim. In pursuant to said letter of opponent No. 2, the complainant supplied certain documents to opponent No. 2 which were readily in possession of the complainant and sought time for the other documents vide its letter dated 9.7.2013. On 5.3.2013, the complainant received another letter from opponent No. 2 requesting him to furnish document viz. (1) FIR/ complaint, (2) Panchnama of, (a) abundant truck, (b) accused arrested by police, (c) goods stolen and report by police (d) papers connected with the incidence, (3) Annual accounts of complainant, (4) Auditors report and income tax return of complainant, (5) VAT return of complainant, (6) Final estimate of loss by the complainant (7) copy of the claim form, (8) copy of proposal form and (9) statement of all the persons recorded by the police in connection with the incident of robbery. The above said request was again made by the opponent No. 2 vide his letter dated 10.9.2013. The complainant then sent detailed reply to opponent No. 2 vide its letter date 16.9.2013. In the said letter the complainant specifically stated that copy of FIR and statement of owner of Aangadi
