This appeal is directed against the order dated 7.10.2011, rendered by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it partly allowed the complaint filed by the appellants/complainants and directed the respondent/ opposite party as under :-

“12.   As a result of the above discussion, this complaint is partly accepted and OP is directed to pay Rs.25,200/- as assessed by the surveyor to the complainant, within one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which, it shall pay the awarded amount along with interest @9% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 07.02.2011, till the date of realization. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the respective parties shall bear their own costs”

2.                          The facts, in brief, are that the complainants purchased a Householders Insurance Policy from the opposite party, on payment of premium of Rs.3,153/-, which was valid from 17.11.2008 till the midnight of 16.11.2009. It was stated that on the night of 15.7.2009, the house of the complainants was burgled, in the wee hours between 0130 hrs. to 0400 hrs. The complainants immediately informed the police and FIR No.188 dated 15.7.2009 was registered. It was stated that the items lost during the burglary and recorded in the FIR also contained certain items which were covered under the said Policy. The opposite party was also immediately informed about the theft, which deputed
M/s Surya Surveyors for further action in the matter. The premises and spot of burglary were inspected by the Surveyor’s representative on 15.7.2009 and the documents were handed over to the Surveyor as demanded by him. Subsequently, Police Station, Sector 36, reported the burglary as “Untraced” on 7.12.2009 on the basis of which, Sunil Kumar, Judicial Magistrate passed the order dated 15.4.2010 and declared the items as untraced. The said order was sent to the Surveyor on the directions of the opposite party-Insurance Company on 20.4.2010.   Thereafter, in spite of supplying all the documents, the opposite party unnecessarily dilly dallied the matter and vide letter dated 1.11.2010 sought certain documents.  The complainants, in reply to the letter dated 1.11.2010, resubmitted all the requisite documents, to the opposite party, vide letter dated 8.12.2010, alongwith the details of the claim of the covered items for Rs.2,01,000/-. However, the opposite party, vide letter dated 16.12.2010, reduced the claim to a paltry sum of Rs.25,200/-, without any justification and reason. The complainants served a final notice on 22.1.2011, upon the opposite party, and requested to review the matter and arrange for the payment of claimed amount of Rs.2,01,000/- alongwith interest.  When the grievance of the complainants was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.

3.                          In its reply, the opposite party did not dispute the factual matrix of the case.  It was stated that vide letter dated 16.12.2010, the complainants were informed about the settlement of claim for Rs.25,200/-, as per the survey report submitted by the surveyor, M/s Surya Surveyor. It was further stated that as per Section 3 of the insurance policy, jewellery amounting to Rs.1,25,000/- was covered under the policy, whereas, the claimants were claiming Rs.2,01,000/-. It was further stated that the complainants were claiming the loss of five gold chains, whereas, only two gold chains were covered under the policy.  The remaining averments were denied, being wrong.

4.                          The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 

5.                          After hearing complainant No.1, in person, who was also the authorized signatory of complainants No.2 & 3, learned Counsel for the opposite party, and, on going through the evidence and record, the learned District Forum, partly allowed the complaint, as stated above.

6.                          Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/complainants.

7.                          We have heard the authorized representative of the appellants, learned Counsel for the respondent, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 

8.                          It is an admitted, fact that the complainants purchased a householders policy. This policy besides other risks, also covered the risk of loss under Section-2- burglary and house breaking including larcency Or theft and section 3- all risks jewellery valuables. Admittedly, on the night of 15.7.2009, a theft took place in the premises of the complainants. Accordingly the FIR was duly lodged with the Police, and an intimation was also given to the Insurance Company, which appointed a surveyor to assess the loss. In the mean time, on 7.12.2009 an untraced report was filed by the Police in the Court, which was accepted by the Court. The same was submitted to the Opposite Party. The surveyor submitted his report on 20.10.2010, and as per this report, under the heading of proximate cause of loss he reported that there was sufficient evidence to confirm that the miscreants had entered the house for theft. Moreover the Police Authorities registered the FIR under Section 380 of the of Indian penal Code and, as such, the reported incident fell within the term of risk “ all risks for jewellary & valuables” as per the Insurance Policy.  We agree with the view taken by the surveyor that the present case fell under Section-3 i.e. the terms of risk “all risks for jewellary & valuables”. The complainants had taken policy for all risks for jewellary and valuables, to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-.  These risks were covered under the policy taken by the complainants.  However, the surveyor assessed the loss for the stolen items of jewellery for Rs.25,200/- on the ground, that no weight was mentioned in relation to the same, in the FIR, lodged by the complainants.   Furthermore the surveyor disallowed the claim, on the ground, that the loss did not fall within the scope of subject matter ‘insured’. The insured had other uninsured jewellary items kept in the locker. Thus the surveyor was wrong in coming to the conclusion that all the articles mentioned, in the FIR, were not stolen. We are of the considered opinion that the loss assessed by the surveyor to the tune of Rs.25200/- was without any justification, as he failed to establish that the stolen jewellery was not the same as was insured. Moreover, the surveyor had not given any reason as to how he had come to the conclusion, that the insured had kept the insured jewellery in the locker. Furthermore he failed to establish that he asked the complainants for the verification/inspection of his locker, but he did not agree for the same. Thus, the surveyor wrongly reduced the claim of the complainants on the ground that they had failed to produce receipt/bills of the stolen items, whereas, all the information regarding the value and weight of the insured items had already been given at the time of issuance of policy. In this view of the matter,  we are of the view that the Opposite Party declined the claim of the complainants by wrongly placing reliance on the surveyor report, who had reduced the claim on flimsy grounds without any proper justification.   However, this fact cannot be denied that the number of stolen items, mentioned in the FIR, was more than the number of insured items and the complainants wrongly claimed a sum of Rs.2,01,000/-, whereas as per the policy he was only entitled to a sum of Rs.1,25,000/-, (the insured amount) by way of indemnification for the loss.

9.                          For the reasons stated above, we are of the considered opinion, that the Opposite Party is deficient in rendering service, as it wrongly settled the claim of the complainants to the tune of Rs.25,200/-, due to which the complainants had to undergo mental agony and physical harassment. However, these facts were not taken into consideration, by the District Forum. Thus, the order passed by the District is liable to be modified.

10.                     In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed with costs, and the order of the District Forum is modified in the following manner.

i)                   The Opposite Party shall pay to the appellants/complainants Rs.1,25,000/- towards settlement of his claim, by way of indemnification.

ii)                 The Opposite Party shall also pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the appellants/complainants, towards mental agony and physical harassment.

iii)              The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation to the appellants/complainants.

11.                     The aforesaid order shall be complied with, by the   Opposite Party, within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, failing which it shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% P.A., on the amounts, awarded above, from the date of filing the complaint, till realization, besides payment of costs. 

12.                     Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.