Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
C. Viswanath, Presiding Member and Ram Surat Ram Maurya, Member
M/s. Baijnath Ramkishore Jewellers —Complainant
versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. —Opp. Party
Consumer Case No.99 of 2012
Decided on 29.4.2022
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Complainant:Mr. Ramesh Singh, Sr. Advocate and Ms. Shreya Jain, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
Vague Warrantee clause - Warrantee clause of the policy was vague, as such, the term of the policy is liable to be interpreted in favour of the Insured and the claim could not be denied on the basis of Warrantee clause, particularly when section-I used the term “Property insured in locked safe of the premises”.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986– S.21(1)(a)(i)[Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – S.58(1)(a)(i)] – Services – Insurance – Burglary/ Theft - Repudiation of Claim – Violation of Warranty Clause - Warrantee clause – Vague clause – No documentary evidence for loss of stock - Complaint has been filed directing Oriental Insurance Company to pay the Compensation - The Insurer in the impugned letters of repudiation, did not doubt the genuineness of the claim and that burglary had taken place by cutting lock of strong room’s door and area around it using gas cutter – The claim was repudiated on the ground that there was a violation of warrantee clause – Warrantee clause of the policy was vague, as such, the term of the policy is liable to be interpreted in favour of the Insured and the claim could not be denied on the basis of Warrantee clause, particularly when section-I used the term – Property insured in locked safe of the premises. The stock of the Insured were kept in strong room/safe and burglary took place by cutting lock of strong room’s door and area around it, using gas cutter – Thus, the surveyor found that this claim included stock of customers for repair and other purpose. But the Insured was unable to provide any documentary evidence of the same such as inward challan, records etc. as such, he assessed loss for Rs.23849683, on which, under-insurance clause and excess clause were applied and in addendum report dated 30.03.2011, he assessed the loss to Rs. 13339189/-. The Insured could not point out any illegality in it as such this amount was payable – Therefore, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.13339189/-, along with interest @9% per annum. [Paras 6 to 11]
Result: Compliant allowed.
ORDER
Heard Mr. Ramesh Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Shreya Jain, Advocate, for the complainant and Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Advocate, for the opposite party.
2. M/s. Baijnath Ramkishore Jewellers (the Insured) has filed above complaint for directing M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (the Insurer) to pay (i) Rs.24933505/- with interest @ 18% per annum, from 20.04.2010 till its payment i.e. the insurance claim, (ii) Rs. 25000000/- to recompense for consistent rise of prices of gold and diamond, from the date of loss and onward, (iii) Rs.500000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment, (iv) Rs. 100000/- as cost of the litigation and (v) any other relief, which is deemed fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The facts, as stated in the complaint and emerged from the documents attached with the complaint, are as follows:-
(a) The Insured was a proprietorship firm and started its business of sale/purchase/repair of jewellery, bullion and precious stones since 13.10.2008, at the given address, which was a three storied building, in which, ground floor and first floor were shop/show room and second floor was used for office, pantry, workshop etc. Entrance/exit was only in front side of showroom, where rolling shutter and glass door were installed. There was another door at the terrace leading to staircase, where iron door was installed. The Insured had two safes/strong rooms i.e. one at ground floor near the reception under staircase and other at the second floor. Strong rooms were built with thick RCC walls from three sides and covered by thick iron/metallic door with heavy locks, which were not breakable manually.
(b) M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (the Insurer) is a public sector company and provides various types of insurance services. The Insured obtained “Jeweller Blocks Insurance Policy” of his shop for the period of 15.10.2008 to 14.10.2009, from the Insurer. At the time of renewal of the policy also, a Proposal Form was got dully filled up. Based on the Proposal Form, the Insurer assessed the premium of Rs.61798/-, which was paid by the Insured and “Jeweller Blocks Insurance Policy No.222100/48/2010/627” was issued on 15.10.2009, for the period of 15.10.2009 to 14.10.2010, in which, the property kept in Display Window of Rs.60/- lacs, property kept in Locked Safe of Rs.275/- lacs and Cash & Currency notes of Rs.5/- lacs (Total Rs.340/- lacs) were insured.
(c) Dilip Kumar Agarwal closed the jewellery shop on 19.04.2010 at 21:15 hours, after keeping the stock and cash, in safe strong rooms and locking its doors. Sanjay Sarkar, Manager, Sunil Gupta, Accountant and Mewa Lal, Peon remained there, for finishing their paper work up to 22:00 hour. Thereafter, the shops were locked and keys were handed over to Dilip Kumar Agarwal, in night at his residence. Mewa Lal, Peon opened the shop on 20.04.2010 at 10:00 hours, in presence of security guard. They found that the empty jewellery boxes at ground floor were scattered and door of strong room at ground floor was broken open using gas cutter. Mewa Lal immediately informed Dilip Kumar Agarwal about the incident, who immediately checked other strong room at second floor, which was found intact. On inspection, he found that the intruders made a hole in the wall by the side of door at the terrace and broke open the lock of terrace gate, which was inside the room. The Insured informed the local police on 20.04.2010 at 10:30 hours, about the incident, where FIR of Case Crime No.69/2010 under Section 457/380 IPC was lodged.
(d) The Insured informed the incident to the Insurer, on 20.04.2010, on which, the Insurer appointed Surveyors Atul Kumar & Company, New Delhi, for survey and assessment of the loss, who inspected the shop on 21.04.2010 and found that lock of strong room’s door and area around it was broken by gas cutter. He prepared inventory and took photographs. He took statements in writing of the Proprietor and other staff. He c
