Per Shri Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member This complaint has been filed by Via Art Jewellery through Prop. Shri Prem Krishnaji Patel (hereinafter referred to as ‘complainant’) alleging deficiency of service against the opponent/Manager-HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘opponent/Insurance Company’) for not settling the insurance claim payable under the insurance policy on account of loss due to burglary/theft. The complainant engaged in business of selling of Art Jewellery and obtained “Business Suraksha Classik Insurance Policy” to provide insurance cover issued by opponent/Insurance Company. Opponent/Insurance Company repudiated the insurance claim under exclusion clause of said insurance policy as burgled/stolen jewellery were not covered under the insurance policy. Aggrieved with the repudiation, the complainant has filed this complaint claiming an amount of `39,04,196/- , `1 Lakh for mental torture with cost of litigation of `75,000/-. 2. Further it is the case of the complainant that “Business Suraksha Classik Insurance Policy” has been subscribed with sum assured of `4.5 Crores providing insurance cover to the shop premises including valuable - 92.5 Branded Silver Art Jewellery stored in the shop premises. Said policy has been issued by the opponent/Insurance Company. During currency of said insurance policy, burglary/theft occurred in the insured shop premises, which was noticed on 13/05/2010 in the morning hours when shop was opened. On opening the shop premises, complainant suspected about burglary and theft at the time of opening the shutter (door) of the shop – Via Art Jewellery. Immediately, on noticing the same, complainant intimated the Police. F.I.R. was lodged in the concerned local Police Station and within 24 hours incident of theft and burglary was informed to the opponent/Insurance Company. Though investigation was carried out by local Police into the incident, accused and stolen properties could not be traced and recovered. Therefore, F.I.R. was closed and finalized as “A-Summary”. Surveyor appointed by the opponent/Insurance Company carried out the survey. On the basis of Survey Report, the claim preferred by the complainant was repudiated on the ground that valuable articles of gold, silver, metals jewellery were not covered under the insurance policy and it was specifically excluded under Section II exclusion clause of the policy issued by the opponent/Insurance Company. It is the contention of the complainant that on the advice of Agent of the opponent/Insurance Company, special insurance policy was subscribed to protect movable and immovable property from the loss due to various unexpected risks and accordingly, policy was issued on their request to provide insurance to the valuables, fixtures and furniture in the shop premises. Therefore, it is stated that repudiation of insurance claim by the opponent/Insurance Company is not justified and it is not as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Aggrieved by the repudiation of claim, present consumer complaint has been filed claiming loss suffered on account of burglary/theft. 3. The opponent/Insurance Company was served with notice. They appeared and filed written version and also affidavit evidence. The opponent/Insurance Company denied the contentions of the complainant and justified the repudiation of the insurance claim on the ground of exclusion clause incorporated in the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also stated in the written version that the complainant has admitted that cash and jewellery were stolen by using duplicate key as incorporated in the F.I.R. and also confirmed by Authorised Surveyor during the course of carrying out the survey. Therefore, in addition to exclusion clause mentioned in the repudiation letter, theft/burglary with use of duplicate key has also not been covered or excluded as per the policy terms and conditions and repudiation of the claim as stated is tried to be fully justified. 4. There is no dispute about policy document and terms and conditions appended thereto. The incident of burglary/theft is also not in dispute. The F.I.R. lodged in the concerned Police Station, after inquiry has been closed as “A-Summary” since stolen property or burglars could not be traced. 5. At the time of arguments, complainant was present in person. However, his Advocate was absent. Learned Advocate Mr.S.R. Singh present for opponent/Insurance Company. Complainant in person was heard, who pleaded that stolen jewellery, fixtures and furniture were insured under the insurance policy with sum assured of `1.5 Crores and for other contents, sum assured was `3 Crores. Sum assured of `3 Crores meant for other contents covering fire and burglary was with intent to provide insurance cover to the valuables and jewellery stored in the shop premises. There is no dispute about terms and conditions ever raised by the complainant about receipt of terms and conditions of subject policy. The other contents “cover against burglary and fire” to the tune of `3 Crores. We do not find the list of other contents covered under the insurance policy under the head “burglary or fire” nor there is any documentary evidence led by the complainant. 6. The policy document further warranted 24 hours security at shop premises. On perusal of the record, there is an admission of the complainant that there was a Security Guard during the day time and at the night time, premises were guarded by Society’s common Watchman. Close-Circuit T.V. was out of order prior to 15 days of occurring incident of burglary and even at the time of filing F.I.R. it is stated that said CCTV was out of order. Moreover, as pleaded by Learned Advocate for the opponent/Insurance Company that duplicate key kept at the Cash Counter was used by the staff working in the shop premises as and when required; is not denied by the complainant. Authorised Surveyor reported that details of other contents insured under the policy to the tune of `3 Crores were not furnished and the complainant replied the query for use of duplicate key by the past or current employees in affirmative. There were no marks of burglary while opening Safe. The complainant did not exercise reasonable care to safeguard valuable articles though failed to establish that insurance policy provided such cover. The complainant did not adduce any documentary evidence to establish his case of providing insurance cover to the valuables i.e. jewellery stolen as against exclusion clause under the policy which does not provide insurance cover to the gold, silver or articles made of precious metals as incorporated in the exclusion clause Section II under the head “Burglary/House Breaking” mentioned in the policy. Moreover, complainant failed to establish that reasonable care to abide by policy condition to safeguard stolen property was adequately exercised. 7. As pleaded by Learned Advocate of the opponent/Insurance Company, terms and conditions incorporated in the policy document are binding on contracting parties as it is a contract between the parties and required to be construed strictly. Remedy under Regulation 6(2) of IRDA (Protection of policy holders’ interests) Regulations 2002 to return the policy document to extend the insurance cover especially to jewellery in shop in the “other contents” column of policy has not been availed of. Therefore, mere statement of the complainant that agent of opponent/Insurance Company misrepresented while subscribing to insurance policy is not acceptable. The complainant thus, failed to make out a case of his insurance claim against opponent/Insurance Company. Complaint is devoid of merit. We hold accordingly and pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Complaint stands dismissed. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced Dated 20th September 2012. | 
