JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he availed of household insurance policy from the op no.1 bearing Policy No. 101100/48/05/3600004450 in the year 2005 and paid a premium a sum of Rs. 2,227/- and during validity period of the said policy on 07.10.2005 complainant along with family member went to Varanasi for a family tour and carried valuables like Sony Cyber shot digital camera being No. BSC540 which was purchased on 26.08.2005 from Sony World located at 65/1, CIT Road, Scheme – VIIN, Kolkata among other valuables.

          That on 10.10.2005 when complainant along with his wife went to see the Arati at about 07:30 PM carrying the aforesaid digital camera for taking the snaps of Arati, but unfortunately the said digital camera was stolen along with other items from the possession of the complainant’s wife in the mad crowd.  So complainant went to the Sigra Police Station at Varanasi and lodged a GD being No. 61/2005 on the same date and also intimated the same to the Superintendent of Police, Varanasi by a letter dated 14.10.2005.  after returning to Kolkata, complainant made a claim on 17.10.2005 to the op no.1 for the said stolen digital camera as it was ensured under section III “All risk jewellery and valuable” of the said Household Policy.  Op no.1 sent one all risk claim form and the same was deposited to the complainant to the office of the op no.1 on 07.11.2005 after duly filled up.  Thereafter complainant issued several letters to the op no.1 but no reply was received ultimately being dissatisfied the complainant reported the matter to higher authorities and op issued a reply to such letter to the complainant asking him to obtain the Final Police Investigation Report from Sigra Police Station, Varanasi, UP and to submit the same to the office of ops.

          But as per section 2(1)(G) of the C.P. Act, 1986 the police report is not required.  But op did not pay any heed and so far deficiency of service, complainant prayed for refund of the claim amount of Rs. 11,300/- and compensation etc.

          On the other hand op by filing written version has submitted that the claim is barred by limitation as complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay.  After 14.01.2005 complainant reported the matter to the op.  But in the complaint it is submitted that all articles including camera were stolen from the possession of complainant’s wife but GD was filed in respect of only one camera.  Op on getting information from the complainant vide their letter dated 18.08.2006 requested the complainant to furnish the Final Police Investigation Report with regard to the alleged stolen Digital Camera.  But complainant failed to submit the said Police report on same plea or otherwise to avoid his illegal claim.  So, op could not take step in absence of police report and relevant documents for failure of complainant to comply the op’s requirement.

          Op further submitted that complainant failed to satisfy the op for not producing he relevant documents and justified the claim and further complainant approached both Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble National Commission for redressal of his grievance both claims are dismissed with cost in accordance with law.  So, complainant is not entitled to get any relief and so the claim of the complainant should be dismissed.

                                                    Decision with reasons

          Fact remains previously complainant filed a complaint before Consumer Forum and Consumer Forum dismissed the same against that Appeal No. FA/08/452 of 2008 of State Commission was preferred that was also dismissed.  Thereafter Revision Petition  No. 3883/2009 was filed before Hon’ble National Commission that was also dismissed.  But from the order of National Commission dated 04.12.2009 it is found that National Commission came to a conclusion that at the relevant time the claim was lodged before the Insurance Company was pending and in the circumstances while dismissing revision petition for its belated filing, National Commission directed the complainant to avail legal remedy available to him after conclusive finding by insurance company with regard to his claim as recorded and it is expected that insurance company shall expeditiously dispose of the claim.

          Initially C.C. No. 70/2006 was filed by the complainant in respect of the present claim and that was disposed on 14.09.2006 and it was dismissed on the ground of non-maintainability and that was disposed on 10.05.2007.  But fact remains Final Police Report was not filed by the complainant to the insurance company as yet and not before this Forum.  Moreover as per section- III “All risk jewellery and valuable” it is found that company will indemnify the insured or any member of the family in respect of the loss or damage to jewellery and valuables caused by accident or misfortune whilst anywhere in India.  Provided that the liability of the company in respect of any one item in any one period of insurance will not exceed the sum insured set against such item in the schedule hereto and not exceeding in the aggregate the total sum insured hereby.  Provided further that where damage to any item can be repaired the company will pay expenses necessarily incurred to restore the damaged item to its former state of serviceability not exceeding the sum insured in respect of such item and in the special conditions it is specifically mentioned that no one article or pair of articles is deemed to be more than 10% of the sum insured under this Section unless separately specified and value stated.

          Ld. Lawyer for the op submitted that in the application there was no such special specification and value of the goods lost has not been stated and fact remains also the said item is not included separately showing the valuation of Rs. 14,498/-. But no doubt as per that receipt in respect of the purchase of the said digital camera cost was of Rs. 11,998/- and it was purchased on 26.01.2005 and policy was opened and the policy was valid from 06.10.2005 to midnight of 06.10.2006 and no doubt policy was valid for that period.  Fact remains insurance company by filing written version has not claimed whether they decided the same or any repudiation was issued by the op or not.  But anyhow op has failed to prove by any cogent documents that whether the claim has been decided and dispute has been settled or not.  But ultimately consumer relationship manager, Department of NC reported to the complainant that as because his case has already been dismissed by the NC having nothing to do and it is also submitted that there was no transit insurance and there was no final report of the investigation for which it was not decided.

          Considering all the above fact and nature of litigation and also considering the direction of the Hon’ble National Commission it is clear that the article was insured under the present insurance policy.  Fact remains police did not take any step as theft was committed on transit.  But as per policy condition Secrtion-3 and also the policy, it is clear that the article was insured under the present policy and as per Section-3, complainant is entitled to get the value of the said stolen article and truth is that for the failure of police and for non-submission of the final police report, no claim can be kept in abeyance for long years in such a manner and no doubt insurance company did not act properly and at the same time insurance company did not investigate the case and did not consult with the Sigra Police Station in this regard and after taking into consideration the above fact and also as per direction of National Commission, we find that this present complaint is not barred by limitation and truth is that insurance company has not repudiated the claim or has not closed the claim as they did not get police report but it is unfortunate.  In the light of the above observation and also considering the entire fact and circumstances we find that complainant is entitled to the entire amount of 10% of the sum insured under this Section unless separately satisfied and value is stated and in the present case as per said special condition of Section-3, it is clear that complainant’s own policy the valuation of the said article is noted Rs.11,998/- which is noted in the Col-3 of the policy in detail as one of the valuable articles.  So, as per Section-3 and special Clause 10% of the sum assured he is entitled to get when sum assured is more than Rs. 12 lakhs.  So, complainant is entitled to Rs.11,998/-, the value of the said Digital Camera and op is bound to pay the same and fact remains fault was not the part of the complainant and complainant no doubt fails to produce the final report and at the same time complainant failed to get any relief as per order of National Commission.  But NC gave liberty to the complainant to file fresh complaint against that relevant item.  Complainant’s claim was not disposed of finally for which no doubt there was some laches on the part of the op which is proved from the observation of the National Commission and in view of the fact complainant is also entitled to some compensation over the said amount from the op along with litigation cost of the complaint when op acted illegally and has not honoured the order of National Commission also.

          Accordingly the complaint succeeds.

          Hence, it is

                                                             ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.5,000/- against the op nos. 1 to 4 and same is dismissed against the op no.5 but without any cost.

          Op nos. 1 to 4 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 11,998/- the value of the Digital Camera and also to pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

          At the time of payment op nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally shall have to pay Rs.5,000/- litigation cost + Rs. 11,998/- the value of the Cyber Shot Digital Camera and also compensation of Rs.5,000/- i.e. total Rs. 21,998/- to the complainant without any fail within one month from the date of this order failing which for non-compliance of the same op nos. 1 to 4 jointly and severally shall have to pay punitive damages @ Rs. 200/- per month till full satisfaction of the decree but even if it is found that op is reluctant to comply the order in that case penal action shall be started against them for which further penalty and find may be imposed for which they shall be liable.