ORDER

PER SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

The complainant is engaged in the business of gold and diamond jewellery and had insured its stock under a policy issued by the OP which was valid for the period 24.3.2011 to 23.3.2012. it is case of the complainant thayt on 22.5.2011 at about 8.30 PM when stocks were tallied ut camet o the kbowlege of the complainant that one diamond piece solitare was missing.  The video recording was checked and it was notice that a sperson who had entered the shop and asked for display gold and diamond jeweelery had shoplifted one of the diaond solitare pieces which were diplsayed to him  The complainant had lodged an FIR no. 206 date 23.5.2011 and ha also intimated the OP about the incident . th complainant had lodged a claim in respect of the stolen soliatare which could not be recocvered .    the OP has refused to pay the clame amount which has led the complainant to file the present complaint. 

  The compint has been contested by the OP . It has filed a reply claiming that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service on its part.   In its written statement under the head preliminary submissions, the OP has stated as under:

 The true and correct facts regarding the case of the complainant are as under:-

That the respondent had granted to the complainant Jewellers Block Insurance Policy bearing No.-3700000379. This insurance was effective for the period from 24/03/2011 to 23/03/2012. Insurance was granted subject to terms & conditions as stated in the policy. A copy of these terms & conditions has been duly annexed by the complainant as page. number 10 to 16 to it’s complaint. Exclusion clause No.-2, condition no.40 & 22 of this insurance policy reads as under: - 
Exclusion clause No.-2 
The company shall not be liable for under this policy in respect of property missing at stock taking in respect of which no claim has been previously notified, unless the loss be proved by the insured to be due to a peril covered by this policy.

Condition No.-1O. 
The insured shall use due diligence and do and concur in doing all efforts reasonable, practicable to avoid of diminished any loss under this policy. 
Condition No.-22. 
The due observance and fulfillment of the terms, provisions, conditions and endorsements of this policy in so for as they relate to any thing to be done or completed with by the insured and the truth of the statements and answer in the said proposal shall be condition precedent to any liability of the company to make any payment under this policy. 
The complainant informed the respondent regarding loss of single piece solitaire due to theft by a visiting customer at the shop of the complainant which is -situated at 165, Kapil Vihar, Pitampura, New Delhi at around 2:30 p.m. on 22/05/2011 and lodged a claim with respondent for reimbursement of Rs.2,26,492/-. As per requirements of section 64 UM of Insurance Act 1938 the respondent requested argue associates independence surveyor & loss assessor to investigate & assess the loss. The said surveyor submitted its report to the respondent without prejudice & for further consideration of the claim by the competent authority of insurance company strictly as per terms & conditions of contract of service entered into between the insured & the insurer. 
The competent authority after carefully examine entire matter came to the conclusion that the claim of the complainant is not payable for violation of policy condition as referred to herein below: - 
(i) As per exclusion clause no.-2 property missing at stock taking in respect of which no claim has• previously being notified unless the loss be proved by the insured to be due to peril covered by the policy.

(i)                 The description / rate of accusation of stock summary does not match with the copy of purchase invoices submitted by the complainant. 
(iii) There is violation of condition No.-1O according to which the insured shall use due diligence and do and concur in doing all efforts reasonable, practicable to avoid of diminished any loss under this policy. 
(iv) The insured has not acted as prudent person as if they were uninsured. 
Keeping in view the above mention violations of the insurance policy on the part of the complainant the claim of the complainant was repudiated vide letter dated 08/12/2011. The complainant represented that his case should be reviewed. After careful consideration of the entire matter the case was reconsidered and it was found that the claim has been rightly repudiated. In this connection a deltailed letter dated 28.3.2012 was written to the complainant.  A copy of this letter is annexed as annxed R-1 to this reply.

         The OP has contested the complaint o merits and has reiterated that the clim has been righlty repudiated. 

   We have heard arguments advanced at the bar and have perused the record.

                The OP had  appointed a surveyor namely M/s Argus Assosicates to assess the loss in the present case.   A copy of the report has been filed before us .  In his report the surveyor has assessed the loss at Rs. 2,26,592/- .    The surveyor has clearly opined that the insured had suffered the loss to the ralseny .    Still the OP has repudiated the claim on the  exclusion clause no. 2 , condition no 10 and codndontion no. 22 as reproduced abovbe in the preliminbary submissions to its written statement.    We are of the considered  opinion that the matter is not covered under the aforesaid clauses .  the loss was notied while taking stop at the claose of the business at about 8.30 pm and was covered as it was a case of shop lfting.  Rthe OP has not shown as to how there was anb absensce of reasonable care on the ap[art of the complainant in safeguarding the insured property.    We, therefore, hold that the repudiation of the claim was unbjustfied and uncalled-for.   We hold OP insurance company defifiencyt in rendiering service to the complainant and direct it as under;

1.      Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 2,26,592/- along with interest @ 10 % p.a. from the date of rfilign of this complainant i.e. 29.11.2013.

2.      Pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation. 

             The OP shall pay this amount within a period of 30 days from the date of this order failing which they shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum.  IF the OP fails to comply with this order, the complainant may approach this Forum for execution of the order under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

Copy of the order be made available to the parties as per rule. 

    File be consigned to record room.

     Announced in open sitting of the Forum on.....................