IN THE DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION Date of Institution: 19.11.2014 Date of Hearing: 14.11.2025 Date of Decision: 15.01.2026 FIRST APPEAL NO.-1072/2014 IN THE MATTER OF ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE – II, SCOPE MINAR, LAXMI NAGAR DISTRICT CENTRE, LAXMI NAGAR - DELHI – 92.

(Through: J.P.N Shahi & Associates)

...Appellant VERSUS MR. PRAVEEN KUMAR SHARMA, R/O WZ – 174, STREET No. 4 A, 5 A, OLD SAHIB PURA, TILAK NAGAR, DELHI – 110018.

(Through: Mr. Zahid Laiq Ahmed, Legal Aid Advocate)

…Respondent CORAM:

HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL (PRESIDENT)

HON’BLE MS. BIMLA KUMARI, MEMBER (FEMALE)

Present: Mr. J. P. N. Shahi, Counsel for the appellant.

(Enrl. No. D/171A/1996, Email: advspnshahi@gmail.com.

Respondent in person Mr. Zahid Laiq Ahmed, Counsel for the Respondent.

(Enrl. No. D/5680/2017) Email: zahidlaiqahmed@gmail.com)

PER: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, PRESIDENT

JUDGMENT

1. The facts of the case as per the District Commission record are as under:

“1. We have summarily considered the complaint of alleged deficiency on the part of OP in not paying the claim against insurance amount for unfortunate loss of gold jewellary of complainant, insured with OP for Rs.18,37,304/- as per valuation report, accepted by OP, while effecting policy issued to him for householder insurance, by accepting Cheque Rs.17,216/- as premium vide Provisional Cover Note No.513880, issued on 24.12.2009, for various house holding items including jewellary.

The case of the complainant is that on 7.1.2010 while going on his scooter No.DL-45, AD5867 at about 1:30 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. while going to Narela, he was carrying the jewellary of his wife in a pouch in his pocket, as he had to further go to Dariba Kalan, Chandni Chowk at Kapoor Jewellers. At about 3:00 he checked and found the pouch missing from his pocket. He immediately went to Bawana Police Station and lodged report of loss, for which policy issued a NCR. He informed the office of OP about the incident.

The OP made enquiries from him and other sources as it doubted the loss in a short time after the policy taken on 24.12.2009. The OP vide its letter 15.4.2010, Annexed at page C-10, informed him that the claim was not admissible for five reasons mentioned, in the letter, including the reason that he did not take reasonable care of the Insured items to prevent the loss. The other reasons included stated that he did not obtain the jewellary certificate of valuation by producing before the, the jewellary which was insured; that he did not carry the jewellary to Narela or that he did not intend to visit Dariba.

It is seen from the record that after complainant filed his affidavit in evidence, OP wanted to cross-examine him orally, which was allowed by court as case required details. However, the complainant did not come forward for cross examination and left the court without informing. The case was dismissed for this technical reason and complainant approached State Commission, which allowed the complainant again to give evidence. The OP filed a list of 61 questions as Interrogatories, which are replied by him and placed on record.’’

2. The District Commission after taking into consideration the material available on record passed the judgment dated 12.09.2014, whereby it held as under:

“We have considered the entire material on record and the terms of policy, the interrogatories and queries and heard the submissions.

We find that the policy covers, loss of jewellary in Section-III of the policy, which deals with All risks of jewellry and valuables. It covers risk for loss by accident or misfortune. The policy does not exclude liability in case of not taking care of the lost items. This type of clause regarding care is incorporated in other sections of the policy. In this Section III special conditions are specifically mentioned, which do not apply in this case.

The question for consideration is that once before effecting insurance, the complainant submitted a valuati