IMPORTANT POINT
Actual Loss – The very status of the actual loss of a huge amount of over and above 1kgm of gold could not be established by the complainant through any cogent evidence and the finding of the surveyor as recorded in the repudiation letter could not be dislodged by the complainant either before the State Commission.

ORDER

The claim under a Jeweller’s Block Insurance Policy by the Complainant was repudiated whereafter the appellant approached the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai, registering the complaint over there. Since it was found that the territorial jurisdiction is that of Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the Complainant instituted the complaint at Chennai, which has been rejected on 06.01.2023. The present Appeal has been preferred against the said Order of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CC No.86 of 2015.

2. The complainant describes himself to be the Director of a Jeweller’s Firm titled as M/s.Ganesh Jewellers Private Limited, Chennai. On 27.02.2012, a hollowing machine which is operated for the manufacture of gold chains was put on by the operator Mr. Jayesh N. Dhakan. After some time it appears that the machine came to a halt on account of power failure. The machine is stated to be automatically operated and therefore it resumed functioning, but at about 4:30 pm. the security guard of the premises noticed smoke coming out. It was discovered that the machine and its electrical equipments had caught fire which was sought to be controlled and was ultimately put out. The complainant alleges that in the said fire accident, 1169.300 gms of gold coupled with 892.700 gms of iron rod that had been ultilised for manufacturing chains were also lost alongwith machinery and equipments.

3. The Insurance Policy covering the said risk was taken by the Complainant and was effective from 01.06.2011 to 31.05.2012.

4. The claim was lodged with information to the Insurance Company promptly, who appointed a surveyor and a final survey report was submitted on 20.09.2012. The report also indicates that debris was collected from the spot by the surveyor for being sent to Emeralds Laboratory, Coimbatore on 18.06.2012 for testing.

5. Information was sought to be collected by the surveyor from the complainant whereafter the survey report was submitted and on 29.09.2012 the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Co. on several grounds, primarily on the ground that the complainant could not establish the actual loss suffered.

6. The complainant approached the State Commission and by the impugned order dated 06.01.2023 the State Commission has recorded that the nature of the claim required thorough investigation of facts which can only be done in a proceeding before the regular civil court. inasmuch as the facts projected on record did not establish actual loss the complaint was accordingly dismissed, hence this Appeal.

7. In order to appreciate the controversy, it may be pointed out that the incident of fire is not disputed. The surveyor found that the documents that were relied on by the complainant were not sufficient to establish the status of stocks of gold to be compare the amount of gold that was stated to have been utilized for the purpose of manufacturing of chains in that particular hollowing machine.

8. Debris which was collected and tested found very minimal traces of gold which did not match with the quantity of loss as claimed by the complainant. It was also observed by the surveyor that the machinery and parts etc. had been shifted before arrival of the surveyor and the statement of the machine man given on 29.02.2012 to 24.05.2012 contained varying stands, hence were not creditworthy. Even though certain gold particles and some gold chain broken pieces were found, the claim of the quantity of the loss was not actually proved. The theory of the gold having melted and washed away was also disbelieved as there was no evidence of the temperature rising above1000 degrees centigrade, which is the melting point of gold.

9. The State Commission thereafter proceeded to consider the matter and then concluded that actual loss could not be established by the complainant and even otherwise any further investigation to examine complicated facts would require the tools of the civil court. Henc