IMPORTANT POINTS
1) Neither employees carrying the gold took any step for its recovery after theft nor did the petitioner, who was informed on telephone asked them to take any step for recovery of the theft good; thus, violation of Condition No. 13 (a) is proved
2) Material contradiction, as in FIR total weight of gold bangles was disclosed as 3.5 Kg and in present complaint 6.7 Kg

ORDER

Heard Mr. Sunil Mund, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Ajay Singh, Advocate, for respondent-1, through video conferencing.

2. This appeal has been filed against the order of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra, at Mumbai, dated 30.01.2015, passed in Complaint Case No. 57/2013, whereby the complaint, for insurance claim, has been dismissed.

3. Hitesh M. Selarka, Proprietor of M/s. Hitesh Jewellers (the appellant) filed Complaint Case No. 86 of 2011, on 29.03.2011, for directing The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (respondent-1) to reinstate the loss of gold of 3.480650 Kg or its value on the date of judgment under Insurance Policy No. 112101/48/2008/1237, (its value was assessed to Rs. 42 lakhs, for the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction), interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of loss till its payment, Rs.2 lakhs, for mental and physical harassment, Rs. 1.5 lakh as cost of litigation, Rs.1 lakh, against opposite party-2, or any other relief which may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. The complaint was dismissed as time barred by order dated 16.06.2011. The appellant filed First Appeal No. 518 of 2011, from the aforesaid order, which was allowed by this Commission, by order dated 21.01.2013 and it was held that there was no delay in filing the complaint, as limitation would start from the date of repudiation of the claim on 01.09.2010. The matter was remanded to State Commission for deciding the complaint on merit. On remand, the case was registered as Complaint Case No. 57/2013.

4. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant was engaged in the trade of gold jewellery (whole sale business) and job work by making gold jewellery. His agents used to travel to different part of the country for selling the gold ornaments. The complainant obtained insurance policy i.e. “Jewellers Block Policy Schedule”, being Insurance Policy No. 112101/48/2008/1237, (hereinafter referred to as Policy No. 1237) extending risk coverage of Rs. 3.01 crores, from The Oriental Insurance Company Limited (opposite party-1) on 24.08.2007, which was valid up to midnight of 23.08.2008. On 27.10.2007, two employees of the Insured, namely Anant Vithmal and Nitesh Bhagne were travelling from Mumbai to Hyderabad in the bus, along with 6.700 Kg. gold ornaments, which were packed in several packets and kept in the bag, duly locked. During night, the thief broke open the lock of the bag and took away some packets of gold ornaments, weight of which was found as 3.480650 Kg. At Hyderabad, the entire passengers elite from the bus, as it was last stoppage. When his employees started to come out of the bus, then they could know about the theft. They reported the theft to the driver and conductor of the bus, who advised to lodge FIR of the incident, at police station as at that time, individual search of the passengers was not possible. The employees of the complainant then informed him about the incident on telephone. The complainant advised them to go to their rooms, where they had to stay and keep the remaining ornaments at safe place. The complainant, then, went to Hyderabad from Mumbai in plane and went to the rooms of his employees and kept the remaining gold ornaments at safe place. Thereafter, FIR (Crime No. 687/2007, under Section 379 IPC) was lodged at Police Station Saifabad, Hyderabad on 27.10.2007 at 22:00 hours. The complainant informed the Insurer about the incident on 29.10.2007 and submitted his claim under the insurance policy. The Insurer appointed Mehta and Padamsee Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai, Surveyor and Loss Assessor, for survey and assessment of the loss. He supplied all the necessary papers to the Surveyor as demanded by him. The Surveyor submitted his report to the Insurer on 12.05.2008 without supplying its copy to him. On which, the Insurer, through letter dated 01.09.2010, repudiated his claim. The complainant gave a legal notice for recalling the repudiation letter and granting the claim. Th