A customer's intention during theft negates lawful presence on premises, affecting insurance liability.

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV , PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. DR.SRIKANTH PANDEY , MEMBER FOR THE APPELLANT:

M/S SHUMB SANKALP JWELLERS FOR THE RESPONDENT:

UNITED INDIA INSURENCE CO.

DATED: 23/05/2025

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO. 1651 OF 2014 (Arising out of order dated 28.07.2014 passed in C.C.No.537/2012 by District Commission, Indore)

1. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.

THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, RAJANI BHAWAN, OPPOSITE HIGH COURT, INDORE (M.P.).

2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.

THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISION OFFICE-II, IDA BHAWAN, FIFTH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, INDORE (M.P.) …. APPELLANTS.

Versus M/S SHUBH SANKALP JEWELLERS, THROUGH PROPRIETOR VINOD KUMAR S/O SHRI RAMLAL GARG, R/O LG 1-2, CITY CENTRE, M.G.ROAD, INDORE (M.P.) …. RESPONDENT.

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2058 OF 2014 (Arising out of order dated 28.07.2014 passed in C.C.No.537/2012 by District Commission, Indore)

M/S SHUBH SANKALP JEWELLERS, THROUGH PROPRIETOR VINOD KUMAR S/O SHRI RAMLAL GARG, R/O LG 1-2, CITY CENTRE, M.G.ROAD, INDORE (M.P.) …. APPELLANT.

Versus

1. BRANCH MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.

RAJANI BHAWAN, OPPOSITE HIGH COURT, INDORE (M.P.).

2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.

DIVISION OFFICE-II, IDA BHAWAN, FIFTH FLOOR, RACE COURSE ROAD, INDORE (M.P.) …. RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE JUSTICE SUNITA YADAV : PRESIDENT HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES : None for the complainant.

Shri Mahavir Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the opposite party-insurance company.

-2-

O R D E R (Passed On 23.05.2025)

Per say Justice Sunita Yadav, President:

Aforesaid appeals assail the order dated 28.07.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.537/2012 whereby the District Commission has allowed the complaint filed by the complainant. Since both appeals arise out of same order therefore, they are taken up together and are being disposed of by this common order. This order shall govern disposal of aforesaid appeals. For convenience facts of the case are taken from the First Appeal No.1651/2014 unless otherwise stated.

2. The opposite party-insurance company has filed First Appeal No.1651/2014 setting aside the impugned order whereas the complainant has filed First Appeal No. 2058/2014 seeking enhancement of compensation.

3. Facts of the case as narrated by the complainant/respondent are that the complainant is dealing in business sale and purchase of gold, diamond and other valuables. For the valuables kept in the showroom the complainant-insured had obtained Jewellers Block Policy for the period 30.03.2009 to 29.03.2010 for sum insured of Rs.1,44,00,000/-. On 08.12.2009 at about 1.30 to 2.00 pm one unknown person as customer -3-

came to purchase gold chains. When the salesperson went to prepare the bill, the unknown customer took away the three gold chains of which FIR was lodged with the police station-Tukoganj, Indore and insurance company was also informed. It is alleged by the complainant that the surveyor appointed in the matter assessed the net loss to the extent of Rs.63,687/-, however, the opposite party-insurance company repudiated the claim. The complainant therefore alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite party-insurance company approached the District Commission seeking relief.

4. The opposite party-insurance company in its reply before the District Commission submitted that there is a contract between the insured and the insurance company and the dispute can only be resolved under the Contract Act. As per exclusion cl