United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs M/S. Orient Treasures Pvt. Ltd

2) In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, which lies in a narrow compass, it is necessary to set out the relevant facts in brief infra.

3) The appellant herein is an insurance company incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at No. 24, Whites Road, Chennai. The respondent herein is also a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Oceanic Buildings, Quilon, Kerala and its branches inter alia at Janpriya Centre No.34, Sir Thyagaraya Road, Pondy Bazar, Chennai.

4) The respondent herein is the complainant. They are engaged in the business of sale of various kinds of Jewellery. The respondent is having their jewellery shop known as “Kanchana Mahal” which is situated at Janpriya Centre No.34, Sir Thyagaraya Road, Pondy Bazar, Chennai.

5) The respondent had insured their jewellery kept in their shop with the appellant under successive “Jewellers Block Policies” with effect from 02.07.1993 onwards. The procedure followed was that the respondent was required to submit proposal form. On receipt of the proposal form, the officials of the appellant-insurance company used to inspect the shop to verify the security and storage particulars.

6) The respondent filled up the insurance proposal form by providing necessary information as mentioned in the form. On the basis of the said proposal form, the appellant issued an insurance policy in favour of the respondent from 02.07.1993 to 01.07.1994. It was then subsequently renewed for further one year, i.e. from 02.07.1994 to 01.07.1995.

7) On 02.06.1995, the respondent alleged that there was a burglary in their Jewellery shop. According to the respondent, on the night of 02.06.1995, burglars broke open the locks of shutters, entered the shop and decamped with the gold and silver ornaments valued at Rs.40,63,735.53. The respondent accordingly lodged FIR at the concerned Police Station on 03.06.1995. The respondent also informed the appellant on 03.06.1995 by a telegraphic communication about this incident. By letter dated 05.06.1995, the appellant informed the respondent that a Surveyor has been appointed to assess the loss suffered by the respondent in the burglary. The surveyor then inspected the site and also examined all the relevant material, books, inventory etc. with a view to assess the actual loss alleged to have been suffered by the respondent and accordingly assessed the total loss at Rs.36,10,211/. Thereafter he submitted his report. After investigation, the police also submitted a final investigation report on 24.06.1995 treating the case as untraceable.

8) The respondent then submitted their claim with the appellant on the basis of the Insurance Policy and claimed that they are entitled to receive the value of Jewellery which they lost in burglary committed in their shop on 02.06.1995. On 19.01.1998, the Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company, Tuticorin after examining the respondent’s claim for loss of their Jewellery repudiated the claim inter alia on the ground that the stolen gold ornaments and silver articles were found to had been kept on display window and in the sales counters at the time of burglary which took place in the night of 02.06.1995, which according to appellant, was contrary to the terms of the policy and, therefore, not covered in the policy. In other words, such items were not insured. It was further stated that the policy was issued subject to the terms, conditions, warranties and exclusion printed in the proposal form which was a part of policy. The appellant relied on clause 12 of the policy and stated that since the burglary in the shop took place during night and stolen articles kept in window display and lying out of safe in the shop were stolen, the appellant could not be made liable to indemnify such loss which, according to them, was not insured and specifically excluded from the insurance policy.

9) Being aggrieved by the decision of the appellant-Insurance Company, the Respondent sent letters and reminders pointing out therein the terms of the proposal form and policy and insisted that the loss was fully covered by the policy and hence they were entitled to claim the value of the lost articles from the appellant on the basis of Insurance Policy. As nothing was done, the respondent filed a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) being Original Petition No. 375 of 1999 claiming a sum of Rs.1,32,06,786.30.

51) In view of foregoing discussion, we cannot concur with the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the Commission. The appeal filed by the insurance company, i.e., Civil Appeal No. 2140 of 2007, therefore, deserves to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. Impugned order is set aside. As a consequence thereof, the complaint filed by the respondent against the appellant out of which this appeal arises is dismissed. No costs.

In the light of the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 2140 of 2007, it is not necessary to examine the merits of the claim filed by the Complainant, which has been rendered infructuous. The appeal thus fails and is dismissed as having rendered infructuous. No costs.