IMPORTANT POINT
‘Anywhere in India’ - No stretch of imagination, the phrase ‘Anywhere in India’ would mean that the goods/ cash of a firm, which was duly inspected by the insurer before entering into insurance contract, could be spread anywhere in India and the insurer would continue to be liable for claim for losses, irrespective of proving of ownership and exercising of basic care.

ORDER

AVM J. Rajendra, AVSM, VSM (Retd.), Member—The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) against the Order dated 02.05.2018 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as “the State Commission”), in Consumer Complaint No.198 of 2006, wherein the Complaint filed by the Complainant (Respondent herein) was allowed by the learned State Commission.

2. For the sake of Convenience, the parties in the present matter being referred to as mentioned in the Complaint before the State Commission Shri Naresh Kumar Bansal, Proprietor of M/s. Shyam Jewelers is identified as ‘the Complainant’ and while M/s. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. are referred to as ‘the Opposite Parties’ or ‘the Insurer’.

3. There was a delay of 27 days in filing the present appeal. For the reasons stated in IA/14680/2018 the delay in filing the Appeal is condoned.

4. Brief relevant facts of the case as per the Complainant are that the Complainant was the proprietor of M/s Shyam Jewelers, located in Chandni Chowk, Delhi. He obtained a ‘Jeweler’s Block Insurance’ Policy No.46/2005/77 issued on 30.09.2004, covering loss of Rs.1,15,50,000/- with a premium of Rs.18,899/-, for the period from 30.09.2004 to 29.09.2005. On 04.01.2005, he was traveling to Jaipur by bus, carrying Rs.30 lakhs in cash for his gold trade. At around 03:00 AM on 05.01.2005, the bus halted at Beharor (Rajasthan) for refreshments and he deboarded the bus to use toilet. On return, he discovered that his briefcase containing the cash was with its locks open and the cash was missing. The incident was reported to the police, who filed an FIR at Sindhi Camp Police Station. The Complainant filed a claim with the insurance company (OP-1) for the stolen cash. However, it was repudiated on the ground that loss of cash was not covered under the ‘Jeweler’s Block Insurance’ policy. He then represented to OP-1 for review, which was without success. After sending a legal notice on 28.01.2005, he filed a Complaint before the learned State Commission, which vide order dated 27.04.2006, directed OPs to reconsider the claim of the Complainant. However, the OPs informed him on 17.10.2006 that his claim was already rejected vide letter dated 25.07.2006.

5. Being aggrieved by the repudiation, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 198 of 2006 before the learned State Commission, sought claim of loss amount of Rs.30 Lacs along with interest from the date of the theft/loss till the date of actual payment along with cost of the complaint.

6. The OPs/Insurer, in their written version, denied the claim, stating that a Jeweller’s Block Insurance Policy was issued to the Complainant, for the period from 30.09.2004 to 29.09.2005. This policy provided coverage for risks up to Rs.35 Lakhs under Section-II. However, it specifically excluded coverage for cash and currency notes while in the custody of the insured, their partners, Directors, Attorneys, employees, or other individuals handling diamonds. There was a separate coverage of Rs.10 Lakhs for property insured, including cash and currency notes, but only if they were in the custody of individuals not in regular employment of the Complainant, viz. brokers, agents, cutters, or goldsmiths. The OPs acknowledged that the Complainant reported the loss of Rs. 30 Lakhs cash while traveling from Delhi to Jaipur in a letter dated 06.01.2005. In response to this claim, the OPs informed the Complainant on 13.01.2005 that his claim was not admissible under the Jeweller’s Block Insurance policy.

7. The OPs/Insurer OPs further asserted that they had replied to a legal notice received from the Complainant, reiterating that the claim was not eligible for coverage under the subject policy. Furthermore, in a subsequent letter dated 25.07.2006, they provided detailed reasons for the non-admissibility of the claim. The OPs emphasized that th