ORDER

For Timeless Jewels      Mr M K Dua, Advocate (FA no.1528/2017)

For Timeless Jewels      Mr Inderjit Kaushal, Advocate (FA no.1600/2017)

For Insurance Company  Ms Neerja Sachdeva, Advocate (Both appeals)

ORDER

PER MR SUBHASH CHANDRA

1.      This appeal under section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) seeks a review of the order dated 31.05.2017 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, UT, Chandigarh (in short, the ‘State Commission’) in complaint case no. 83/2017. This order will also dispose of FA No. 1600 of 2017 filed by the respondent herein against the appellant which also emanates from the same order. As the facts of the case are similar, FA 1528 of 2017 is taken as the lead case.  

2.      The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the appellant/respondent has a jewellery shop, “Timeless Jewels” at SCF No. 3, Phase 3B-2, Mohali, District SAS Nagar, Punjab. The appellant undertakes manufacturing, wholesale and retail sale of certified gold and diamond jewellery and had taken a “Jewellers Block Policy” from the respondent/opposite party from 13.02.2015 to 12.02.2016 and paid a premium of Rs 2,14,936/-. On 13.06.2015, a partner of the appellant came to Delhi by car no. PB 65 X 1035 to purchase and get jewellery finished. In the afternoon the vehicle was flagged down in Karol Bagh on Vishnu Mandir Marg by an unknown person and when the driver and the partner got down to check the vehicle, the bag containing the jewellery was stolen from the car. The police were summoned and FIR No. 458 was registered at Police Station, Karol Bagh (Central), Delhi. The opposite party was intimated on 15.06.2015 and a surveyor was deputed. A claim was filed for Rs 18,11,097.57 with supporting bills/invoices. On 04.09.2015 the police filed an “untraceable report” before the Magistrate, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi. The claim was repudiated on 08.04.2016 on grounds of violation of Clause 10 of the policy that there was failure of due diligence to avoid/diminish loss and Clause 5 that the vehicle where the jewellery was kept would not be left unattended. Complainant filed CC No. 610 of 2016 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, UT, Chandigarh which was withdrawn and filed before the State Commission which came to be decided on contest. The impugned order partly allows the complaint and directs the respondent/opposite party to

(i)     pay Rs 9,87,425/- to the appellant/complainant along with simple interest @ 9% from 24.10.2015 till payment;

(ii)    pay litigation cost of Rs 20,000/- to appellant/complainant;

(iii)    ensure payment within 2 months of the order failing which the rate of interest would be 12% on the amount at (i) above and 9% on amount at (ii) above from the date of complaint till realization.

This order is impugned before us with the prayer to

3.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. In the interest of justice, the delay of 11 days in preferring FA Nos. 1528 and 1600 of 2017 is condoned.

4.      Appellant has assailed the impugned order on the grounds that (i) the State Commission erred in overlooking the fact of an error in the surveyor’s report dated 25.08.2015 which records that though the appellant had mentioned loss of 15 items in the incident of theft, the FIR recorded it as 5 items and therefore valued the loss at Rs 9,87,425/-; (ii) the value of the items was not in dispute as retail invoices had been produced by the appellant; (iii) the impugned order had failed to award compensation of Rs 20 lakhs claimed for mental agony, physical harassment and escalation in prices; and (iv) the letter of repudiation dated 08.04.2016 was unjustified and amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Appellant contended that the repudiation was illegal as the special conditions/exceptions were not communicated and as held by this Commission in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Brahmdeo Pan