Back
2021 Supreme(Online)(Del) 4367
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Prem Narain, PRESIDING, MEMBER
Inter Gold India (Private. Limited) – Appellant
Versus
M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
Consumer Complaint
Insurance claims can be repudiated for negligence in securing property, affecting established insurable interest.
Headnote:(A) Marine Insurance - Theft - Claim repudiated on grounds of negligence and mysterious disappearance. Insured's representative failed to secure jewellery, leading to loss. The court clarified that the insurer does not bear responsibility where negligence is evident. (Para 10)
(B) Insurable Interest - Not established in the absence of custody of property by the complainant; custodianship of Rosy Blue Limited highlighted. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
Complainant insured jewellery for an exhibition in Japan; theft of items led to a claim that was denied due to negligence in safeguarding by appointed representatives.
Findings of Court:
Insurance claim was deemed inadmissible due to the evident negligence on part of the insured's representative, which violated the policy conditions.
Issues: The central issues revolved around the liability of the insurer due to the alleged negligence and the status of insurable interest despite the custodianship by Rosy Blue Limited.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a loss resulting from the insured's negligence disallows indemnification, especially when the custodian fails to secure the property adequately.
Result: Complaint dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. consumer complaint filed against an insurance company regarding theft. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented regarding negligence of custodian in securing jewellery. (Para 3 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court observations concerning the insurer's liability based on established negligence. (Para 4 , 5 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. conclusion on the inadmissibility of the claim due to negligence. (Para 10) |
| 5. final ruling on the complaint's dismissal. (Para 11) |
1. This consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant Inter Gold India (Private. Limited) against the opposite party M/s. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
2. Brief facts of case are that the complainant had to display its jewellery samples at IJT show, Tokyo Japan scheduled to be held between 26.1.2000 to 29.1.2000. For the purpose of display complainant had tied up with M/s. Rosy Blue Ltd. of Japan for allocation of display space by exhibition authorities. For facilitating the display, complainant had prepared 148 pieces of jewellery samples of value at $ 54,060.01 which were to be shipped. For insurance of the said shipment, complainant had obtained a Marine Insurance Policy bearing No. 112500 from the OP covering transit, storage at and before during exhibition at Tokyo, Japan and also covering risk of loss of 148 pieces of jewellery for an amount of Rs.25,77,852. On 29.1.2000, during tenure of exhibition, there has been a theft of 130 pieces of jewellery valued at $44,537.71. A police complaint was lodged at head quarter Fukagava P.S. in Japan. On 29.1.2000, complainant reported the matter to Insurance Company and also to W.K.Websters International Pte Ltd. On 9.2.2000, while matter was being examined OP issued a fresh Special Contingency Insurance Policy bearing No. 505. On 14.11.2000, OP vide letter communicated to the complainant that they have received all the papers from Space W.K.Websters International Pte Ltd. and they had presented the file to senior authorities for consideration. On 2.8.2001, OP vide letter asked the complainant to lodge a claim against M/s. Rosy Blue holding Mr. Jhaveri responsible for loss or alternatively to request M/s. Rosy Blue to lodge the claim under their global policy because under the jeweller's Block Insurance policy, the property held in trust or commission is covered. In addition, OP asked the complainant to submit the copy of terms and conditions of agreement with M/s. Rosy Blue w.r.t. exhibition held in Japan. On 11.1.2002, OP vide letter informed the complainant that despite exchange of various correspondence complainant has not produced the details called from them vide letter dated 2.8.2001 and granted further 15 days time to comply the requirement failing which the claim would be closed. The complainant has alleged that non - settlement of claim despite repeated reminders and after lapse of considerable period amounts to deficiency in services on the part of OP. On 13.1.2003, this complaint was filed. The main prayers made in the complaint are as under:
1. Direct the OP to pay the claim amount of Rs.23,31,746 along with interest @18% from the date of claim till payment.
2. Direct the OP to pay sum of Rs.23,31,746 plus Rs.10,00,000 as compensation for mental harassment and cost of the complaint.
3. The OP resisted the complaint by stating that the instant case pertains to the special Contingency Policy bearing No. 112500/46/99/00505 issued by OP to the complainant for the period 15.1.2000 to 15.3.2000 in respect of 148 pieces of studded gold and platinum jewellery. The said policy had been issued against the coverage of burglary theft and allied perils, accidental damage, riot, civil commotions, etc. The complainant dispatched the consignment of 148 pieces of studded gold and platinum jewellery by air to M/s. Rosy Blue (custodian of complainant's Jewellery) at Japan for exhibition. On 29.1.2000, M/s. Brinks Japan Ltd. which had been appointed to keep the safe custody of jewellery before and after the exhibition hours, kept the jewellery in a seale
