Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
A.P. Sahi, President
Winsome Yarns Ltd. – Appellant
versus
ICICI Lombard General
Indusrace Co. Ltd. and Ors. – Respondents
First Appeal No.1748 of 2017
(Against the Order dated 30/06/2017 in Complaint No. 908/2016 of the State Commission Chandigarh)
Decided on 26.9.2023
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Mahesh B. Chhibber, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr. Navneet Kumar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
CCTV camera - The existence of a CCTV camera on the main road is not a security arrangement of the claimant and even that did not convey any clue.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 19 [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 51] – Appeal - Services – Insurance – Repudiation of Claim – Justified - Theft – Absence of Security - The security involved is not for something trivial. It is a godown that constantly houses stocks worth more than Rs.50 lacs at a time. The same cannot be left unattended just by placing locks. There was not even a burglar’s alarm deployed, much less a watchman or a night guard. The only evidence that has been pleaded is of an interse dialogue noted in the FIR between the informant Accounts Officer and a loading labourer which exposes the vulnerability of so-called security. The existence of a CCTV camera on the main road is not a security arrangement of the claimant and even that did not convey any clue. The complainant therefore could not satisfy by offering any evidence for believing the existence of security - Admittedly, any arrangement for “24 hrs security in force” was completely absent. Any other connotation of the description would be redefining the warranty condition - To infer a lock or locks as a singular device to be sufficient would be denuding the real intent of the phrase “security for 24 hrs.” What is clearly intended is strengthened by the composition of the clause that denotes a comprehensive secured arrangement and not a simple placement of locks - Consequently, the claimant has failed to dislodge the conclusions of the surveyor as accepted in the letter of repudiation and as upheld by the State Commission so as to establish any deficiency of service. The claim has no merits as the claimant has clearly failed to secure the godown in terms of the warranty clause, hence it is a clear breach of the same thereby disentitling the claimant for any relief, as prayed for – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 6 to 28].
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER
This appeal arises out of an insurance complaint rejected by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission) where the opposite party was the respondent Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. During the pendency of this appeal, the general insurance business of the respondent underwent demerger to M/s. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. that was approved by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India vide letter dated 03.09.2021 with a clear stipulation that the policy holder’s interest shall be ensured at all times including timely redressal of their grievances, if any. IA/6774 of 2023 had been filed by the respondents in this appeal with a request to substitute the respondents accordingly. The request was accepted and the application was allowed vide order dated 18.07.2023.
2. The appellant/complainant took a Burglary cum House Breaking Insurance Policy from the respondents/Insurance company which was continuing and the policy i.e. subject matter of this controversy undisputedly covered the risk of goods kept in the godown of the appellant, the duration whereof was 08.01.2015 to 07.01.2016. The dispute arose after a claim was made by the appellant informing the respondents that a burglary involving theft of the goods disclosed therein had been committed and therefore the appellant was liable to be reimbursed for the loss and damage caused. The coverage of the policy was for a sum of Rs.60,00,000/- and the loss claimed was Rs.55,74,429/-.
3. M/s Puri Crawford Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors India Pvt. Ltd. were appointed as surveyors who submitted a report assessing the loss to the tune of Rs.33,46,325/- but at the same time endorsed their clear opinion that there was a warranty clause in the policy that the claim would be admissible provided “24 hours security should be in force”. The observation was that since this warranty condition had been violated by the appellant, the Insurance Company was not liable for any indemnity. On receipt of the surveyor’s report, the claim was repudiated on 12.02.2016.
4. The core question therefore is as to whether the warranty clause had been violated by the appellant by not providing security for 24 hours as envisaged in the policy document. The arguments that have been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the response given by the learned counsel for the Insurance company have extensively addressed this Bench on this issue.
5. The State Commission vide order dated 30.06.2017 accepted the stand taken by the Insurance company and dismissed the claim petition. Hence this appeal.
6. At the outset, one issue stands settled, namely, the contention of the appellant about non-availability of the policy terms and conditions. The finding recorded by the State Commission is categorical that is contained in para-14 of the impugned judgment. The said finding could not be assailed on any ground successfully before this Commission as well and accordingly the same is confirmed.
7. The second argument that seems to have been advanced before the State Commission about the insurance policy having been obtained for commercial purposes has also been settled in view of the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Harsolia Motors & Ors. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 409 where the Apex Court held that when an envisaged risk is covered under the policy, then it is not for commercial purposes and is only for indemnifying actual loss which cannot be construed to generate profit.
8. Having cleared this web, the core issue which has to be addressed is as to whether the appellant had failed in deploying 24 hours security or otherwise. As contended by the appellant, placing of locks on the godown was complete security. Learned counsel for the appellant advanced his submissions contending that locks were placed on the godown and there is absolutely no contrary evidence to demonstrate that the god
