The insurer can repudiate a claim for breach of policy conditions regarding safety precautions, justifying dismissal of the appeal.

1. The present Appeal is filed against the order dated 27.4.2012 passed by Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. CC / 08/103 whereby the Consumer Complaint filed by the Complainant / Appellant was dismissed.

2. Case of the Complainant is that they obtained “Jeweller’s Block Insurance Policy” No. OG - 08-1901-4099-8 for Rs. 20,00,000 from the Opposite Party, valid from 13.4.2007 to 12.4.2008. On 15.11.2007, a robbery took place in the shop of the Complainant wherein gold and silver ornaments worth Rs. 30,00,000 were looted. The Complainant lodged a Police Complaint and also submitted a claim for Rs. 30 lakh with the Opposite Party / Insurance Company. The Opposite Party appointed a Surveyor to assess the loss. The Surveyor, vide his report dated 16.01.2008, assessed the loss at Rs. 19,01,890. The Surveyor observed that the Insured did not have any security system like watchman, CCTV Camera, TV monitor, etc. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that Insured failed to take reasonable precautions for safety of the property. Aggrieved by repudiation of claim, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint with the State Commission with the following prayer: -
“(a) By award and order, the Opposite Part directed and order to pay the claim amount found due and payable under the policies bearing No. OG - 08-1901-4099-8 for Rs. 30,00,000 to grant Interest at 18% p.a. from ____ till payment as per regulation and law.
(b) Cost and Expenses incurred at Rs. 10,00 and Rs. 50,000 for Advocate fees are granted, & mental torture & harassment of Rs. 1,00,000
(c) To Order the erring officers of the Opposite Party’s to pay such amount as this Hon’ble Commission deem fit and also direct the Opposite Party to conduct inquiry and take action as per law against such officers / managers.
(d) Such other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Forum deem fit and proper.”

3. The Opposite Party resisted the Complaint by filing the written statement. It was stated that repudiation of the claim was based on violation General Conditions of the Insurance Policy as the Complainant failed to install CCTV camera in the premises and deploy a Security Guard / watchman as mentioned in the proposal form. It was stated that General Condition No. 2 provided for adequate safeguard as referred to in the proposal form, which was not done by the Complainant. The contract of insurance was, therefore, voidable at the option of Insurer. The Opposite Party also stated that the Complainant had not approached the State Commission with clean hands and the Complaint was liable to be dismissed.

4. The State Commission after hearing the Counsel for the Parties and perusing the record, vide order dated 27.4.2012, dismissed the Complaint. Aggrieved by the order of the State Commission the Appellant / Complainant preferred the present Appeal with the following prayer:
“(a) That the order passed by the Hon’ble Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Mumbai be set aside and quashed and Award and Compensation claimed by the Appellant in the original complaint be allowed and granted with interest and compensatory cost.
(b) Such other and further order or relief as the Hon’ble Commission deem fit and proper.”

5. (6.) Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Appellant / Complainants submitted that installation of CCTV camera and deployment of Security Guard was not included in the terms & conditions of the Insurance Policy. He further submitted that in the General Conditions of the Insurance Policy it was referred that the Insured sha