ORAL JUDGMENT

PER JUSTICE MR. V.R. KINGAONKAR      

          This appeal emanates from the order of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Complaint Case No. CC/09/1962 dated 8^th February, 2011.  By the impugned order, the complaint was dismissed.

2.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits of the matter.  The appeal is being disposed of at the stage of admission on merits itself for the simple reason that the short question for determination is: “Whether the appellant is entitled to claim the assured amount on strength of the Jewelers Block Policy issued in his favor by the respondent?”

3.      The appellant is a partnership firm dealing in valuable gems and stones.  The appellant had obtained “Jewelers Block Policy” from the respondent.  The policy was for period between 27^th March, 1997 to 26^th March, 1998.  The sum assured was Rs.1,50,00,000/- under Section I, Rs.65,00,000 under Section II and Rs.15,00,000/- under Section III.  According to the appellant, diamonds worth Rs.45,00,000/- were handed over on 24-11-1997 to one Mr. Vikram known as Vicky by nick name.  He was a known broker dealing in gems in the Opera House area of Mumbai and, therefore, the valuable stones were entrusted to him under cover of Jangad Slip  dated 24-11-1997.  That broker had duly signed the Jangad Slip (Exhibit C).

4.      The case of the appellant was that nothing was heard of the said broker called “Vicky” and it was learnt that he had also taken valuable diamonds and like stones from other traders.  It was, therefore, inferred that the broker had misappropriated the stones or that somebody had played foul with  him.  A  joint   complaint was lodged by the appellant and other similar  duped  traders   on 04-11-1997 with J.B. Crime Branch, Mumbai through M/s M. Kantilal & Co. Ltd.   The police investigated the matter but could not find trace of said Vicky.  The appellant lodged insurance claim with the respondent, which was repudiated on the ground that the case was not of the heist or robbery committed by any unknown person but was of misappropriation by a person known to the appellant.

5.      The State Commission, on the basis of available material, reached the conclusion that on careful consideration of the conditions of the insurance policy called “Jewelers Block Policy”, it is explicit that the complainant must prove that loss had occurred due to theft or robbery or any removal of the property by use of criminal force.  The State Commission held that the valuable diamonds/stones were entrusted to the broker in normal course of the business practice and usual trading of the appellants and others.  Therefore, it cannot be branded as “robbery or theft by use of criminal force” and as such the claim was not maintainable.

6.      We have gone through the impugned order and also considered the submissions of learned coun