DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)

MAHARANA PARTAP BUS TERMINAL: 5^th  FLOOR.

KASHMERE GATE DELHI.

No. DF / Central/ 2015

Bengani Industries

Through its sole properitor

Mr. Kamal Kumar Jain, S/o Late Sh. Chandan Mal Jain,

R/o 261, Veer Appartment, Sector 13 , Rohini Delhi-110085                                                                             ..........Complainant

Versus

1. Oriental Insurance Company ltd

Oriental House , PB no 7037, A-25/27.

Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi-110002

                                      ..........Respondent/OP

BEFORE

SH. RAKESH KAPOOR, PRESIDENT

NUPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

Per Sh. RakeshKapoor, President

    The complainant had purchased a policy of insurance in respect of stock/ Jewellery from the OP which was valid for the period 30.8.2011to 29.8.2012. The policy covered loss in transit as well. It is alleged by the complainant that on 19.10.2011 ,he was carrying goods/ articles/ jewellery while  travelling in bus no. 355 within the jurisdiction of PS Karol Bagh and during transit jewellery worth about 11 Lacks was stolen.  He had lodged an FIR in respect of the theft on the same day .  The police could not trace out the culprits and had given an untraced report. The claim lodged by the complainant was however repudiated by the OP on the ground that the complainant had failed to take due diligence and reasonable care  to safe guard the insured articles.   The complainant has alleged that the repudiation of the claim was an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OP and has , therefore, approached this forum for redressal of his grievances.

The OP has contested the complaint and has denied any deficiency in service on its  part. It has justified its act of repudiation of the claim and has claimed that it had act in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy purchased by the complainant. Para 3 of the preliminary objections of the written statement is relevant for deciding the complaint and is reproduced as under:

3. That the loss had taken place while the jewellery was being carried in brief case is a crowded bus. The briefcase was opened/ tampered with, without the alleged proprietor Mr. Jain sensing it and realizing the sound of unlocking of the two clips of the briefcase. Further, in a crowded bus in a place like Delhi it is not possible to open the briefcase and remove the packet. As such the complainant has violated the clause 10 of the terms and conditions of the policy which reads as follows:

“the insured shall use due diligence and do and concur in doing all efforts reasonable practicable to avoid or diminish any loss under this policy.” The copy of terms and conditions of the policy is annexed here with as Annexure A.

    The OP has contested the com plaint on merits and has reiterated that the claim was not payable under the terms an d conditions of the policy of insurance.

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

      Courts have on  a number of occasions impressed upon the officers  of the insurance companies who deal with the settlement of claims to act in  a manner which advances the purpose for which the insurance contracts are entered into.  It has been impressed upon them not to repudiate the claims on whims and fancies or on flimsy grounds.  It appears to us that this case is one where the officers of the OP company have acted arbitrarily in repudiating the claim lodged by  the complainant.  The record shows that the insurance company had appointed Mr. Ram Gopal Verma , a charted accountant as a loss assessor on receipt of the information about the loss in this case.  Mr. Ram Gopal Verma had filed a report wherein he had concluded that it was a genuine case of loss of jewellery in transit. He had assessed the loss to the tune of Rs. 10 ,84, 939/- and had further opined that there was no breach of the policy terms and conditions and the loss was not covered under any exclusion clause. He had specifically stated that the loss was covered in the insurance policy and there was no breach of the policy terms and conditions.  There is nothing on record to show as to why the insurance company did not act on the report of Mr. Ram Gopal Verma.  The insurance company has repudiated the claim on the ground that the insured had not taken reasonable care  to safe guard the insured articles.  The OP insurance company has not explained as to what was expected of the insured and how there was want of reasonable care on  his part .  The insured was taking the jewellery in a briefcase while travelling.  The jewellery was stolen after some body opened the briefcase clandestinely. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the repudiation of the ground of want of reasonable care on the part of the insured in safe guarding the insured articles was unjustified and uncalled-for.   We , therefore, hold that the OP was deficient in rendering service to the complainant and direct it as under:

1. Pay to the complainant Rs 10,84,939/- ( Ten Lakhs Eighty Four Thousands Nine Hundred and Thirty Nine Only).
2. Pay to the complainant  a sum of Rs. 10,000/- 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.....................

(NUPUR CHANDNA)                     (RAKESH KAPOOR)

     MEMBER                              PRESIDENT