Insurance claims cannot be rejected if the loss falls within the specific coverage terms of the policy, and a surveyor's report is not conclusive or binding for the settlement of a claim.

Present:-

For the Appellants : Sh. Munish Goel, Advocate

For the Respondents : Ms. Madhu Sharma, Advocate

1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No

2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No

3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No

JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT:-

The Appellants/Complainants have filed the present Appeal under Section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (in short the ‘Act’) being aggrieved by the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ropar (in short the “District Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.78 of 2023, whereby the Complaint filed by the Complainants had been dismissed.

There was delay of 37 days in filing of the Appeal. I.A. No.932 of 2025 was filed for condonation of delay which was supported by an Affidavit. The delay of 37 days was condoned vide order dated 08.08.2025. I.A. was disposed off accordingly.

Briefly, the facts of the case of the Complainant which are necessary for disposal of the present Appeal are that the Complainants being aggrieved by the action of the OPs had filed the Complaint before the District Commission with the following prayer :-

(a) To settle both the claims of the complainants by paying both the claim amounts of Rs.2,24,977/- + Rs.2,00,507/-, total amounting to Rs.4,25,484/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of occurrence till its realization ;

(b) To pay an amount of Rs.5 Lakhs as compensation for causing harassment, mental tension, agony, pain and economic loss to the complainant ;

(c) To pay Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses and costs.

In response to notice issued to the OPs, reply was filed wherein certain objections were raised and other averments made in the Complaint were denied.

By considering the averments made in the Complaint and reply thereof as well as the oral arguments raised by the Counsel for the parties and the documents available on record, the District Commission had dismissed the Complaint. The relevant part of the order as mentioned in para 11 of the order dated 07.04.2025 is reproduced as under :-

“11. Hence, as per the repudiation letter Ex.C-33 dated 20.3.2023, claim of the complainant has been closed due to above said reasons. As such, this Commission has come to the conclusion that there is no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby ordered to be dismissed.”

Being aggrieved by the Order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the District Commission, the Appellants/Complainants have filed the present Appeal for setting aside the impugned order and to allow the Complaint.

Mr. Munish Goel Advocate, learned Counsel for the Appellants has submitted that it was a case of clear ‘deficiency of service’ as well as ‘unfair trade practice’ on the part of the respondents but the District Commission had dismissed the Complaint without taking into consideration the stand taken in the reply. Learned Counsel has also submitted that the District Commission had also not taken into consideration the facts and the argument that the Appellants had taken the Insurance Policy from the Respondent to cover the risk of theft, burglary, robbery, dacoity or any other loses as mentioned in the policy issued for the period w.e.f. 24.02.2020 to 23.02.2021. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Appellants had suffered loss of Rs.2,24,977/- on 09.11.2020 when the employee of the Appellant’s Firm namely Ravinder Kumar, after collecting the daily cash from the godown was going to deposit the same in the bank account of the Firm with HDFC Bank, Anandpur Sahib. On reaching approximately 600 meters from the godown, 3 unknown persons with muffled faces had attacked upon him and snatched the bag containing the money from him by putting them under threat of hurt/grievous hurt. The Appellants immediately after the s