Back
GUJARAT STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Mr. Justice M.D. Shah, President, Mrs. Jyoti P. Jani and Mrs. Usha P. Jani, Members
ASOPALAV JEWELLERS PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. - Respondent
Complaint No. 6 of 2014
Decided on : 16-06-2017
Mr. Premal Joshi, Advocate, for the Complainant; Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, Advocate, for the Respondent/Opponent
Adherence to the specific coverage conditions of an insurance policy is crucial, and failure to do so may result in the justified repudiation of a claim.
Headnote:
Insurance - Jewellers Block Policy - Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code - [Section 1(a), Classification Warranties, Clause 5, Clause 12] - The court discussed the terms and conditions of the Jewellers Block Policy, focusing on the requirement to secure the insured property in a locked burglar-proof safe at night and out of business hours, and the employment of watchmen. The court also referenced a decision of the Supreme Court of India, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the policy's specific coverage conditions.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant's silver utensils were stolen from their shop, covered under a Jewellers Block Policy. The insurance company repudiated the claim, citing breach of policy terms regarding the safety and security of the insured articles.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complainant breached the terms and conditions of the policy by not securing the articles in a safe after business hours and by not maintaining functional CCTV cameras. The court also relied on a Supreme Court decision to support the insurance company's repudiation of the claim.
Issues: Breach of policy terms, deficiency in service, entitlement to claim under the Jewellers Block Policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant's failure to adhere to the specific coverage conditions of the policy constituted a breach, and the insurance company was justified in repudiating the claim.
Final Decision: The complaint was dismissed, and the court found no deficiency in service displayed by the insurance company in repudiating the claim.
ORDER
M.D. Shah, President. - The complainant is carrying on the business of retail sale of silver jewellery, utensils and silverware in the name and style 'Asopalav Jewellers Private limited'. The complainant took Jewellers Block Policy from the opponent insurance company which commenced from 18.9.2012. Under the said policy, risk of stock, stock in trade consisting of jewellery, gold and silver articles, plate pearls and precious stones of any sort or kind, cash and currency notes and/or other merchandise and materials has been covered against burglary and other eventualities. At about midnight of 1.11.2012. theft took place at the shop of the complainant and silver utensils worth Rs. 30,00,000 were stolen. The complainant filed complaint before the Gotri Police Station which was registered as Cr. No. 1-303/12 under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. On 2.11.2012, the complainant also informed the opponent insurance company and requested to depute surveyor for necessary action. The surveyor was appointed by the insurance company and he visited the insured place. The complainant provided the relevant papers. The, surveyor submitted the final survey report to the opponent on 28.2.2013. As per the say of the complainant, the complainant submitted the final police report with the surveyor and insurance company. By letter dated 13.8.2013, the opponent insurance company repudiated the claim of the complainant on the ground that as per the terms and conditions of the policy the stock was not kept in safe burglary at night. Full time watchman was not there and at the time of the incident CCTV installed in the showroom was not kept in working condition. The complainant was, therefore, constrained to file the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opponent insurance company. The complainant prayed for a direction to the insurance company to pay Rs. 30,00,000 (value of the properties stolen) under the Jewellers Block Policy with running interest @ 12% p.a.
2. Notice was served to the opponent insurance company and the insurance company filed its reply on 23.3.2015. Mainly it is contended that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, the insured must take proper care for the safety of the articles kept inside the store and also raised contention that as per the terms and conditions of the policy, watchman was not there and CCTV camera was not found in working condition. Therefore, the claim has been rightly repudiated by the insurance company and there is no deficiency in service on its part. The opponent, therefore, requested to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant has produced copy of policy at page 13, Inspection Report of Mr. Dewang P. Patel, Surveyor, Valuer and Loss Assessor at page 17, Copy of FIR of Cr-1303/12 at page 19, letter dated 2.11.2012 addressed to the opponent United India Insurance Company Limited regarding intimation of theft at page 26, Report of Parimal R. Shah & Company, Surveyors and Loss Assessors at page 29, final report under section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 by the Police Inspector, Gotri Police Station, Vadodara at page 35 and copy of letter of repudiation dated 13.8.2013 written by Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company to the complainant at page 53.
4. The opponent has placed on record certified copy of the Jewellers Block Policy for the period 18.9.2012 to 17.9.2013 along with its written statement
5. Heard Mrs. Kiran Joshi, learned Advocate for the complainant and Mr. H.G. Mazmudar, learned Advocate for the opponent insurance company. It has been vehemently argued by Mrs. Joshi that as per the policy of insurance it is very clear that the property insured in the premises as per Section I of the policy was Rs. 1,27,00,000 which includes the articles kept in the display widows (Rs. 1.15.00.000) and in locked safe (Rs. 10,00,000) and cash and currency notes (Rs. 2,00,000). It is clearly suggested that silver articles worth Rs. 30.00.000 w
