Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI, J.
The New India Assurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
M/s K P Jewelers (Partnership) & Ors. – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No.6003 of 2024
Decided on : 19-04-2024
Insurance Policy - Jeweller’s Block Insurance Policy - 11.03.2008 to 12.15.2008 - 1. Thefts or disappearance of property from road vehicles - 2. Vehicle left unoccupied - 3. Misrepresentation, mis-description or non-disclosure of material particulars - 4. Due diligence to avoid or diminish loss - 5. Prudent uninsured - 6. Exception clause 5 - 7. Surveyor's report - 8. High Court's supervisory jurisdiction - 9. Concurrent findings of fact - 10. No error of law or jurisdiction
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Public Sector General Insurance company, repudiated a claim for stolen laptop and jewelry bag under a Jeweller’s Block Insurance Policy. The respondents filed a complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), which partly allowed the complaint. The insurance company appealed to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which modified the SCDRC's order. The petitioner then approached the High Court, challenging the NCDRC's judgment and seeking to quash the SCDRC's judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the concurrent findings of fact by the SCDRC and NCDRC. The court held that the theft reported and claimed by the insured was covered by the policy, and the vehicle was not left unoccupied as per the surveyor's report. The court also emphasized the limited scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction and refused to interfere with the lower forums' decisions.
Issues: 1. Repudiation of insurance claim for stolen laptop and jewelry bag - 2. Jurisdiction of SCDRC to entertain the complaint - 3. Interpretation of Jeweller’s Block Insurance Policy clauses
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court emphasized the importance of concurrent findings of fact by the lower forums, the limited scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction, and the interpretation of the Jeweller’s Block Insurance Policy clauses. The court upheld the findings that the theft was covered by the policy and the vehicle was not left unoccupied.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the judgments of the SCDRC and NCDRC and refusing to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact.
ORDER :
1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 01.01.2024 passed by the learned National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, the “NCDRC”) in First Appeal No.2428 of 2017 and order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad in (for short, the “SCDRC”) in Complaint Case No.09 of 2010.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner herein is a Public Sector General Insurance company, which is involved in the insurance sector and offers a wide range of insurance products and services to the customers and is administered by the Ministry of Finance. The respondent no.1 has availed the insurance policy being Jeweller’s Block Insurance Policy bearing No.230400/46/07/45/00000038 with a validity from 09.05.2007 to 08.05.2008 for the sum of Rs.20 lacs. The said policy is duly produced at Annexure-C to the present petition. The respondent no.2, with one Shri Pankajbhai Chandrakant Jhaveri, who happens to be the partner of respondent no.1 and nephew Riddheshbhai Jhaveri were travelling to Vadodara, carrying Acer company laptop and 71 pieces of diamond studded ornaments of the respondents. At about 12:15 hrs., they reached near Nana Varaccha and stopped the car for filling up gas from the CNG gas station and due to security reasons, everyone was asked to step out of the vehicle while filling the gas. At that time, Pankajbhai was away from the car and was busy on a phone call and when he came back, he noticed his laptop and bag were missing and took help of motorcycle but, was not able to catch the thief. The aforesaid incident was reported to the police. The FIR was lodged at Kapodara police station against the unknown persons. The petitioner - insurance company was also informed. A surveyor was appointed by the insurance company. A survey report assessing net loss of Rs.20 lacs was submitted. The respondents herein lodged the claim with the insurance company for stolen laptop and diamond and jewelry bag. The petitioner – insurance company repudiated the claim vide letter dated 29.04.2009. The relevant part of the repudiation letter reads thus:-
2. the insured shall take all reasonable precautions for the safety of the property as regards, selection and supervision of employees securing all doors and windows and other means of entrance or exit otherwise and shall not withdraw or vary the protection and/or safeguards as are referred to in the proposal form to the detriment of the interest of the company without its consent.
3. the policy shall be void and all premium paid hereon shall be forfeited by the company in the event of mis-representation, mis-description or non-disclosure of any material particulars.
4. the insured shall use due diligence and do and concur in doing everything reasonably practicable to avoid or diminish any loss under the policy.
5. you have not acted as a prudent uninsured.
In view of above, we hereby repudiate our liability and close the file as no claim. In case you have any grievance you may please contact our grievance cell Surat Regional Office Floor, Tirupati Plaza, Nanpura, Surat.”
2.1. Being aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim on 29.04.2009, the respondents – original complainants filed a complaint before the SCDRC being Consumer Complaint No.09 of 2010 with the following prayers:-
b. To pass the order against the opponen
The High Court emphasized the importance of concurrent findings of fact, the limited scope of the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction, and the interpretation of insurance policy clauses in reaching....
1) Fundamental principle of insurance law that utmost good faith must be observed by the contracting parties and good faith forbids either party from non-disclosure of the facts which the parties kno....
An insurance claim for theft cannot be settled on a non-standard basis (partial payment) unless the insurer proves a fundamental breach of policy conditions or clear contributory negligence by the in....
(1) The insurer is required to enquire from the claimant as to what was the reason or the delay in submission of the claim. The claim should be rejected only where the insurer finds that it was liabl....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
