Date of Filing: 29/06/2011
Date of Order: 11/08/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 11th DAY OF AUGUST 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 1185 OF 2011
M/s. M.M. Fabrics,
Nandi Market, Jumma Masjid Road,
Bangalore City.
Rep. by its proprietor Sri. Kundanmal.S.Jain,
S/o. Sheshmal, Aged About 65 years.
(Rep. by Advocate Kumara) ` Complainant.
-V/s-
1) M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Limited, Head Office,
GE Plaza, Airport Road,
Yerwada, Pune-411006.
Rep. by its Manager.
2) M/s. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance
Company Limited, Branch Office at No.31,
Ground Floor, TBR Towers, 1st Cross,
New Mission Road, Next to Bangalore
Stock Exchange, Bangalore-560 024.
Rep. by its Branch Manager.
(Rep. by Advocate Manoj Kumar M.R.) Opposite parties.
BY H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
ORDER
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, are necessary:-
The complainant had obtained a policy with respect to its shop from the opposite party bearing No.0G-07-1701-4092-00000682 and was paying premium regularly. On 11.10.2008 the shop was burgled and the burglary damages is Rs.8.19 lakhs of valuable goods, cash, silver coins and silver idol. It was informed to the second opposite party through phone and submitted claim form. The second opposite party had come to the spot and have properly verified, inspected and took photographs regarding burglary damages. The complainant had given co-operation and given all the relevant documents pertaining to burglary claims. The complainant had reminded the opposite parties on 24.04.2009 and 19.05.2009 to settle the claim, but they have not done so. The representatives of the opposite parties came and negotiated for Rs.3,50,000/- and the complainant has signed the blank form in the month of December-2008. But the opposite parties have issued a frivolous letter on 18.08.2009. They have committed deficiency in service. Therefore the complainant issued notice to the opposite parties on 16.02.2010 and the opposite parties have given frivolous reply. Hence the complaint.
2. In brief the version of the opposite parties are:-
The complainant had obtained Shop keepers’s package policy in respect of his commercial premises M/s. M.M. Fabrics, Nandi Market, Jumma Masjid Road, Bangalore, for the period from 23.03.2008 to 22.03.2009 under policy bearing No.OG-07-1701-4092-00000682. The liability of the opposite party is in accordance with the terms of the policy. If there is any violation then the opposite party is not liable to pay. On 11.10.2008 there was a burglary. Cash, silver coins and silver idol are not covered under the policy. As the complainant informed the burglary the opposite party sent its surveyor and investigator who went to the spot conducted investigation survey and gave a report stating that the loss is Rs.5,01,000/- of the stock and cash of Rs.10,000/-. Regarding the burglary the complainant has complained before the police where an investigation was conducted. The employee of the complainant has committed the burglary. In view of the above, as per the terms of the policy the opposite party is not liable to pay any amount. Hence it has rightly repudiated. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate the respective cases the opposite party has filed its affidavit and documents. The complainant did not turn up at all. Hence the opposite party was heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
- Whether the repudiation of the claim by the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service/unfair trade practice?
- What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are:-
Point (A):In the Negative
Point (B) : As per the final order
For the following:-
REASONS
POINT (A) to (B):-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavit of the opposite party and the documents of both the parties, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had insured his shop with the opposite party under Shop Keeper’s Package Policy and paid the premium and the insurance was valid between 23.03.2008 to 22.03.2009. It is also an admitted fact that on 11.10.2008 the shop of the complainant was burgled and the complainant has lodged a complaint before the Ulsoor Gate Police. Wherein it was registered in crime No.0335/2008 and issued FIR. It is also an admitted fact that after conducting the investigation the police authorities have filed a charge-sheet against Mukesh Dalji for an offence punishable Under Section 457 and 380 IPC stating that the accused Mukesh Dalji was an employee of the complainant and he committed the theft. In this regard the complainant had given a letter to the police on 12.10.2008 stating that the said Mukesh Dalji was his employee since 20 days earlier thereto and he was being paid a salary of Rs.3,000/- per month. It is also established that on 11.11.2008 the said Mukesh Dalji had given a statement to the police authorities stating that he was an employee of the complainant and he committed theft. It is further seen that on 11.11.2008 itself the complainant verified the accused Mukesh Dalji and given a statement to the police stating that the said accused Mukesh Dalji was his employee and he committed burglary. That is to say the employee of the complainant committed burglary and theft.
7. There is an exclusion clause in the policy which reads thus:-
”3 Exclusion:
No indemnity is available hereunder for any claim directly or indirectly caused by, based on, arising out of or howsoever attributable to any of the following.
3.2 In which the Insured, any Employee of any other person lawfully on or about the insured Premises is or is alleged to be in any way concerned or implicated.”
That is to say the insurance company is not liable to pay any claim under the policy if any employee of the insured has been implicated in the burglary. In this case as the complainant’s employee himself has committed burglary the opposite party has rightly repudiated the claim. There is no illegality or irregularity in it. Hence it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Dismissed. No order as to costs.
2. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 11th Day of August 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
