Punjab

StateCommission

A/11/1557

UIIC Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Super Jewellers - Opp.Party(s)

D.P.Gupta

13 Mar 2015

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                                           PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

(1)               First Appeal No.1557 of 2011

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 28.10.2011  

                                                          Date of Decision:  13.03.2015

 

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Regional Office, 136, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through Shri. A.S Ghuman, Deputy Manager. 

                                                                                                                                                                             …..Appellant/Opposite party

                                      Versus

 

Super Jeweller Private Limited, Post Office Bazar, Bathinda through its Director Shri Girdhari Lal Singla.

                                                                                                                                                                   …..Respondent /complainant

 

         

First Appeal against order dated 19.08.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Vinod Kumar Gupta, Member.    

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                            : Sh.D.P Gupta, Advocate.

          For the respondent               : Sh.Mukand Gupta, Advocate

 

          . . . . ……………………………………………………………….

                                             AND

(2)                        First Appeal No.1768 of 2011

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 02.12.2011  

                                                          Date of Decision:         13.03.2015

 

Super Jewellers (Pvt) Ltd., Post Office Bazar, through its Director Girdhari Lal Singla.

                                                          …..Appellant/Complainant

         

 

                                      Versus

 

United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Civil Lines, G.T Road, Bathinda through Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, 2090-B, Ist Floor, The Mall Bathinda.

 

                                                          ….Respondent/Opposite party.

 

         

First Appeal against order dated 19.08.2011 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda

 

Quorum:-

 

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

          Shri Vindo Kumar Gupta, Member.    

 

Present:-

 

          For the appellant                             : Sh.Mukand Gupta, Advocate

          For the respondent               : Sh.D.P Gupta, Advocate.

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

J. S. KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

                                     

           First Appeal No.1557 of 2011 has been filed by the appellant (the opposite party in the complaint) against the respondent of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint), challenging order dated 19.08.2011 of District Forum Bathinda, accepting the complaint of the complainant directing the OP to pay the amount of Rs.18,60,237/- for compensation for loss, Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant. First Appeal No.1557 of 2011 has been filed by Op as appellant and  First Appeal No.1768 of 2011 has been filed by the complainant as appellant against the order of the District Forum Bahinda.

2.      The above-referred two appeals have arisen out of the same order of District Forum Bathinda dated 19.08.2011 and as such, we propose to dispose of them together by means of this common order, which shall be passed in Main Appeal No.1557 of 2011 in case titled as United India Insurance Company Limited.. Versus.. Super Jewellers.

 3.     The complainant Super Jeweller (          Pvt.) Ltd., Post Office Bazar, through its Director Girdhari Lal Singla has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OP on the averments that the complainant is a private limited company incorporated under Companies Act and Sh.Girdhari Lal Singla is authorized to file the case being Director of the complainant company and has been authorized to file it by the Board of Directors, vide resolution dated 14.3.2011. The complainant company is engaged in the business of retail sale of Diamond/Gold/Silver Jewellery ornaments. The complainant obtained Jewellers Block Insurance Policy, vide cover note no.501063 with effect from 22.11.2009 to 21.11.2010 and the insured amount was Rs.5,62,70,000/- on stock of all kinds of gold, silver, brass, diamond, pearls, precious stones and gold biscuits, cash and currency notes and other merchandise and material required to conduct the business. The property under Section I and II of the insurance policy including cash and currency notes was insured up to Rs.35 lacs, while in the custody of the insured, his partners, directors, employees duly constituted.  The complainant has not used manufacturing facilities for manufacturing ornaments and for selling the jewellery and it mostly purchased ornaments from the manufacturers from Delhi and Mumbai. That Mr.Ritesh Amba son of Sh.Surinder Amba, resident of street no.9, Adarsh Nagar, Goniana Road, Bathinda has been an employee of the complainant company since last five years. That above Mr.Ritesh Amba employee of the complainant company went to Delhi for purchase of the ornaments on 2.12.2009 in Punjab Mail Train, which ran from Bathinda Railway Station at about 11.45 PM and Ritesh Amba reached New Delhi  by the above train on 3.12.2009 at 5.30 AM and he purchased gold ornaments from M/s V.L Jewellers, Karol Bag, New Delhi at about 11.30 AM on that day and thereafter returned to Railway Station Bathinda. The jewellery was purchased by him from M/s V.L Jewellers Karol Bagh, New Delhi up to 3.30 PM on 3.12.2009 worth Rs.18,60,237/-, vide book No.01, bill No.045 dated 3.12.2009 and he reached Bathinda Railway Station through Punjab Mall Train at about 4.30 AM on 4.12.2009 along with his two suit cases. The above jewellery purchased by him from V.L Jewellers New Delhi was kept in one suitcase, whereas his personal belongings were kept in other suit case. On reaching railway station Bathinda, Mr.Ritesh Amba telephonically called Mr.Girdhari Lal Singla, Director of the complainant company to lift him from the cycle parking of the railway station and thereafter Mr.Ritesh reached the cycle parking at railway station along with above referred two suit cases. He started waiting for Girdhari Lal Singla the above referred Director of the company to pick him up thereform. In the meanwhile, he noticed that one of the suitcases containing the gold jewellery was purchased by him from New Delhi and he searched for the same, but to no effect. Mr.Girdhari Lal Singla as referred above also reached there and they went to Police Station Kotwali Bathinda, to inform about it to lodge the FIR.  They were asked to come in the day time after 10.00 AM as the SHO would be available by that time in the police station. They again visited  police station Kotwali and they were guided to approach GRP (General Railway Police Station) to report the matter and they contacted the General Railway Police Station Bathinda and reported that matter on the same day, vide DDR No.5 dated 4.12.2009, whereupon FIR No.83 dated 17.12.2009 under Section 379 IPC was registered there against unknown persons. Requisite information was given to the OP about the loss of the jewellery by means of theft. The OP deputed Sh. Vinod Sharma as a surveyor or loss assessor to make the survey of the same. The surveyor and loss assessor was duly cooperated by the complainant and requisite documents, as demanded by him, were duly supplied to him. The police could not trace out the offenders and virtually non-traceable certificate was issued about this theft by the GRP Police Bathinda on 30.12.2010. The OP repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant on account of breach of policy condition no.2, 7 and 10, vide letter dated 29.1.2011, which was duly conveyed to the complainant. That the terms and conditions of the jewelers block policy were never supplied to the complainant. The act of the OP in repudiating the insurance claim of the complainant is tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant has, thus, filed the complaint against the OP directing it to pay the loss of theft of jewellery to the tune of Rs.18,60,237/- to the complainant along with interest @18% p.a and to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.

4.      Upon notice, OP appeared and filed written reply raising preliminary objections that complaint has been filed only to spoil their goodwill and merits dismissal under Section 26 of the CP Act with special costs. The complex questions of facts and law are involved in the present case and voluminous evidence is required for settlement of the controversy in this case and it cannot be decided in a summary proceedings by the Consumer Forum. The material facts have been concealed by the complainant in this case. The claim of the complainant was thoroughly investigated and it was found that complainant violated the terms and conditions of the policy, particularly Para no.2,7 and 10, which led to the repudiation of the Contract of Insurance. That there is unexplained delay on the part of the insured for reporting the matter to the police in this case as well. The incident took place at 4.20 a.m on 4.12.2009, but the police was informed at 11.30 a.m and hence there is delay of seven hours in reporting the matter to the police due to which vital time was lost to nab the offenders. Mr. Ritesh Amba employee of the complainant had not taken due care of the jewellery and he carried two suit cases instead of one suit case for purchasing the jewellery at Delhi and he talked to Girdhari Lal Singla on mobile phone, which betokened the lack of due care by him, particularly, when he could not notice the offender with the lost bags. The employee Mr. Ritesh Amba left the suitcase of jewellery unattended and went away therefrom and lost it due to his own negligence. There was no question of his leaving the busy railway station area and preferring to wait at isolated place of cycle parking.  There is violation of condition no.2 of the terms and condition of the insurance policy as the insured had not taken reasonable precautions for the safety of the property. There is also violation of condition no.7 of the insurance policy, as reasonable steps, which were practical from all  angles, have not been taken to trace and recover the lost property on account of delay of seven hours in reporting the matter to the police. That there is also violation of condition no.10 of the insurance policy in this case as due diligence and due care to avoid or diminishing the loss had not been taken. It was further pleaded by the OP that as per Section III of the insurance policy, the sum insured is zero regarding the property excluding cash currency notes, whilst in transit within India and no premium was paid under Section 64 V.B of the Insurance Act thereon, therefore, the instant complaint is not maintainable. Any deficiency in service was stoutly denied by the OP in this case. Complaint was also contested even on its merits in the written reply filed by the OP and it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.      The complainant tendered in evidence the affidavit Ex.C-1 of Sh.Girhdari Lal Singla Director of the complainant company, copy of resolution Ex.C-2, copy of memorandum Ex.C-3, copy of insurance cover note Ex.C-4, copy of retail invoice Ex.C-5, copy of retail invoice Ex.C-5, copy of FIR No.83 dated Ex.C-6, copy of letter dated 4.12.2009 Ex.C-7, copy of certificate Ex.C-8, copy of letter dated 29.1.2011, affidavit of Girdharil Lal Singla Ex.C-10, affidavit of Ritesh Amba Ex.C-11, copy of letter dated 5.2.2011 Ex.C-12, copy of railway tickets Ex.C-13, copy of Mamorandum and articles of association of Super Jewellers Pvt.Ltd Ex.C-14, copy of DDR Ex.C-15. As against it, OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Balwinder Singh, Divisional Manager of United India Insurance Company Ex.R-1, copy of insurance policy Ex.R-2, copy of repudiation letter Ex.R-3, copy of letter dated 27.1.2011, copy of final survey report Ex.R-5, copy of purchase register from 1.4.09 to 31.12.09 Ex.R-6, copy of bill dated 3.12.2009 Ex.R-7, copy of FIR Ex.R-8, railway tickets Ex.R-9 to Ex.R-10, trading account for the period ended 4th December 2009 Ex.R-11, letter dated 14.12.2009 Ex.R-12, letter dated 9.12.2009 Ex.R-13 and letter dated 4.12.2009 Ex.R-14. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Bathinda accepted the complaint of the complainant by passing the order under challenge in this case. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Bathinda dated 19.08.2011, the First Main Appeal No.1557 of 2011 has been filed by OP now appellant, whereas another First Appeal No.1768 of 2011 has been preferred by the complainant now appellant against this order.

6.      We have heard Ld.Counsel for the parties and have also examined the record of the case.   It is an admitted fact in this case that the complainant is a private limited company, which deals in the business of retail sale of Diamond/Gold/Silver Jewellery ornaments. Sh.Girdhari Lal Singla has been authorized to file the complaint by virtue of resolution of the company, vide Ex.R-2 dated 14.03.2011 passed by the Board of Directors, Ex.C-4 is policy cover note which has been produced by the complainant, Ex.C-5 is copy of bill retail invoice issued by the V.L Jewellers to the complainant company indicating that the jewellery worth Rs.18,60,237/- was purchased on 3.12.2009 by the complainant. FIR, Ex.C-6 which has been lodged at Police Station GRP Bathinda about the loss of the jewellery from the hands of Ritesh Amba the employee of the complainant. Ex.C-7 is letter of the complainant addressed to Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company intimating the loss of the jewellery. Ex.C-8 is copy of certificate issued by the SHO Police Station GRP showing that the case has been sent as untraced, vide report dated 30.12.2010. The real offender could not be traced by the GRP Railway Police Station  Bathinda in this case. The affidavit of the complainant Girdhari Lal, who is authorized by virtue of resolution to file the complaint, is Ex.C-10 on the record. He swore in the affidavit in support of the case of the complainant, as pleaded in the complaint. The affidavit of Ritesh Amba, the employee of the complainant company is Ex.C-11 on the record. He has also reiterated the facts on oath, as pleaded in the complaint regarding the fact that he purchased the jewellery from Delhi on 3.12.2009 and reached therewith at Bathinda Railway Station at about 4.30 a.m on 4.12.2009. That he was waiting for Sh.Girdhari Lal, Director to pick him up therefrom, when one of the suitcases was found missing containing jewellery purchased by him from Delhi. The letter sent to the Branch Manager through courier is Ex.C-12 by the complainant giving reply that repudiation of the claim of the complainant is unjustifiable. Ex.C-13 is copy of ticket purchased by the complainant for journey by Punjab Mail from Bathinda to Delhi on 3.12.2009. Ex.C-14 is Memorandum and Articles of Association of the complainant's company and Ex.C-15 is DDR report lodged by the complainant

8.      In rebuttal of the above evidence, the OP relied upon the affidavit of Sh.Balwinder Singh, Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ex.R-1 and copy of terms and conditions of the policy is Ex.R-2. Intimation through courier to complainant is Ex.R-3, repudiation intimation by the OP dated 27.1.2011 as Ex.R-4. Final survey report dated 18.9.2010 submitted by Sh.Vinod Sharma Ex.R-5 is on the record. On receipt of the intimation of the loss, the OP deputed Sh.Vinod Shamra Surveyor and Loss Assessor to conduct the survey. He submitted his detailed report Ex.R-5 in this case. Ex.R-6 is the purchase register entry of the complainant. Documents supplied to the Surveyor constituted a part of the report. Ex.R-12 is the letter addressed to Sh.Vinod Sharma, the Surveyor by Gobind Aggarwal Manager for reporting the progress of the survey report. The letter Ex.R-13 dated 9.12.2009 was addressed by the complainant to Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company regarding intimation of loss. Ex.R-14 is also loss intimation under cover note No.501063.

9.      We have also considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and documents on the record. The points of the disagreement in this case, are with regard to the alleged breach of condition no.2,7 and 10 of the Contract of Insurance Policy by the complainant. We have respectfully examined the evidence on the record and then have to come to the conclusion, as to whether violation of condition no.2, 7 and 10 of the insurance policy have been established in this case on the part of the complainant or not. The terms and conditions including condition no.2,7 and 10 in detail of the policy is Ex.R-2 on the record.

10.    Firstly we dwell on this point as to whether there is any breach of condition no.2 of the policy in this case by the complainant, as alleged by the OP or not. Condition No.2 is to this effect that insured shall take all reasonable precautions for the safety of the property, as regards selection and supervision of employee, securing all doors and windows and other means of entrance or exit otherwise, and shall not withdraw or vary protection or safeguards, as are referred to in the proposal form to the detriment of the interest of the insurance company without its consent.

11.    We have examined the respective evidence of both sides on this point. Condition No.2 of the contract of the insurance Ex.R-2 specifically lays down that insured shall take all reasonable precautions for the safety of the property, as regards selection and supervision of employee, securing all doors and windows and other means of entrance or exit otherwise, and shall not withdraw or vary protection or safeguards, as are referred to in the proposal form to the detriment of the interest of the insurance company. We find that  the jewellery was not thieved from the shop of the complainant company. It was rather lost while the employee Ritesh Amba was bringing it from Delhi to Bathinda and thereby reached railway station Bathinda and contacted the Girdhari Lal Singla, Director of complainant on telephone to pick him up therefrom. We find that insurance company/OP just finds excuses, which are imaginary to wash off their hands from the Contract of the Insurance. Firstly, the jewellery was not in the shop, so as to determine that it was not properly secured or not or securing of doors and windows were not properly maintained inclusive an entrance and exit. This condition no.2 would not be invoked in this case because the employee of the complainant was bringing it from Delhi to Bathinda and reached railway station Bathinda with the jewellery early in the morning on that day and contacted Girdhari Lal Singla Director to pick him up therefrom, so as to rule out the possibility of its theft on the way to the shop. If he came in rickshaw or auto-rickshaw to the shop from railway station Bathinda to avoid any violation of the condition no.2. The Surveyor is primarily deputed to assess the loss by contacting the surveyor and surveyor's province is not to adjudicate this point as to whether the insurance claim is payable or not. We concur with the findings of the District Forum, which have been arrived at after appreciation of evidence on record that there is no violation or breach of condition no.2, as alleged by the OP in this case.

12.    Now, we have to examine this point as to whether there is any violation  of condition no.7 of the policy, which lays down as under:

          "The insured upon becoming aware of any loss in respect of which the claim is or may be made, shall take all practicable      steps to trace and recover any property. There is only delay of approximately seven hours in reporting the matter to the police           which has been clearly explained. Firstly, the complainant side        went to police station Kotwali Bathinda and they had to wait          there for some hours and when SHO came there, he the      referred them to GRP railway police Bathinda, which exercised           jurisdiction over the area of theft of the jewellery. The insured           was required to use due diligence and to take care in making      efforts reasonably practicable to avoid or diminish any loss    under the policy."

          The next point is whether there is violation of condition no.7 ? In fact it is condition no.6 upon which OPs are relying, which is gathered from gist of their pleas. Condition No.6 is to the effect as under :

          "The insured upon becoming aware of any loss in respect of which a claim is or may made, shall take all practicable steps     to trace and recover any property and in the event of theft or     damage (direct or indirect) to discover the person by whom the           property was stolen or          damaged and to prosecute and obtain the conviction of such person for offence and trace and      recover any property stolen."

13.    Now, we have to examine the point whether insured upon becoming aware of any loss in respect of which the claim is or may be made shall take all practicable steps to trace and recover any property and in the event of theft or damage to dis-recover the person by whom property was missing.

14.    Much emphasis has been laid on this point by the OP that complainant side had not taken any such steps to trace the property and to nab the offenders in this case. That there is delay of seven hours in reporting the matter to the police. We have duly examined the evidence of both sides, coupled with the documents, as placed on record. The contention of the complainant is that on reaching Girdhari Lal Singla Director on the spot, he and Ritesh Amba, the employee of the complainant then went to Police Station Kotwali to report the matter and they were asked to wait for some time as SHO would be available by that time to lodge the FIR. When SHO came there, it was found that in fact the GRP Railway Police Station had jurisdiction over the matter. The complainant thereafter contacted the GRP Railway  Police Station, Bathinda and lodged the FIR regarding this theft of jewellery. We find that there is not unnecessary negligence or delay on the part of the complainant. A layman does not know as to which of the police has jurisdiction over the place of theft. They contacted nearby police station, wherefrom they were asked to wait for some time as SHO was not available at that time. The FIR of theft of jewellery in such type of large magnitude is registered by the SHO under his supervision and petty police officers usually advise to wait for SHO to be present in the police station. We are convinced with the explanation tendered by the complainant that seven hours were lost in this process by them on account of approaching wrong police station then for waiting for SHO and then actually to contact to police station of the area, which has jurisdiction over the place of theft.

15.    The next point is whether any reasonable care was taken to nab the offenders to recover the lost property? We find from evidence on the record that the employee Ritesh Amba was in utter shock when the theft of the large magnitude of jewellery took place. He must be dumb-founded on finding the missing of the valuable suitcase containing jewellery and it is not expected of a person, who was in such a great shock, to take the precautions to nab the offenders and to recover the property. His senses were affected considerably on account of this shock. Girdhari Lal Singla Director reached there and they looked around but could not find the traces of the offender or the property. It cannot be said that no efforts were made by them to recover the stolen property or to find out the offender at all. It is also an imaginary ground of the OP, just to get rid of the insurance claim that employee should have taken one suitcase to Delhi instead of two suitcases. It has appeared on the record that usually he took two suitcases, one for his personal belongings to Delhi and other for jewellery so purchased by him. He did not go there for the first time and it was his routine practice. The District Forum rightly came to the conclusion on appraisal of the evidence on the record that the employee of the complainant company could not be faulted for carrying two suitcases instead of one with  him to Delhi. The employee was not armed with weapons and was not bold and courageous enough to remain unaffected by this shock. We find that there is no real substance on the record nor any evidence to this effect has been pointed out by the counsel for the OP that reasonable care has not been taken of the property. The submission of OP is that very fact of late approaching the police proved lack of negligence on the part of the police. It is not fault of the complainant, if the above-referred delay took place due to the lackadaisical attitude of the police as SHO of the approached police station was not available and when available and thereafter he referred the complainant side to GRP railway station Bathinda. We concur with the findings of the District Forum, after considering the relevant evidence on the record, that violation of condition no.6, which is alleged to be condition no.7 has not been established in this case.

16.    The next point for adjudication is whether there was violation of condition no.10 to the effect that the company shall not be liable to make any payment under this policy in respect of any loss or damage if discovery thereof be not made immediately on the happening of the same. We find that even condition no.12(a) has laid down that the insured shall give notice to the police and to the company within 24 hours and take all practicable steps to discover the guilty person or persons and to recover the property lost or stolen and to prosecute and obtain the conviction of such person or persons for the offence. Herein, there is no negligence on the part of the complainant, as complainant reported the matter to the police and seven hours period was spent as SHO was not available at Police Station Kotwali and he later on directed the complainant to approach the GRP Police Station Bathinda, which had jurisdiction over the matter. We do not find any violation of condition no.10 or 12(a) of the terms and conditions of the policy in this case. No document has been brought to our notice on the record by the counsel for the OP regarding breach of these terms and conditions. We find that the OP rejected the claim of the complainant  on the basis of the figment of their own imagination. In practical life, it is not so easy, which is expected by the  OP from the complainant and by not finding any lack therein it is only an excuse to get rid of the insurance claim. We are one in agreement with the findings of the District Forum on this point. Even if the contention of the complainant that the terms and conditions of the document were not supplied to him is repelled on this point by the law laid down by the Apex Court in case General Assurance Society Ltd… Chandumull Jain and another reported in 1966 ACJ 267  that "A cover note is a temporary and limited agreement. It may be self-contained or it may incorporate by reference the terms and conditions of the future policy. The parties were covered by the conditions of the future policy during the intervening period. The contract of the insurance is complete as soon as proposal is accepted and cover note are issued. Even otherwise we find that the breach of condition No.2,6,10 and 12(a) have not been established on the record as observed by the District Forum under order in this case.

17.    The penultimate submission of counsel for the OP before this Commission is that since property was lost while in transit, therefore, the complaint of the complainant is fully covered by Section III of the Insurance Policy Ex.R-2, under which no premium was paid by the complainant.

18.    We find that the Section III of the Contract of Insurance Ex.C-2 pertain to the property insured excluding cash and currency notes, whilst in transit in India by (a) registered insured post parcel (b) Air freight (minimum 20% value declared to the Airlines) (c) Agandia. We find that the Section III of the insurance policy Ex.R-2 is not applicable in this case. The property was not in transit in the in the above referred condition, as adumbrated in Section III of it. Section III of Ex.R-2 would apply to registered insured post parcel or air freight or agandia. We find that instead of Section III of the Contract of Insurance Ex.R-2, It is Section II of the insurance policy Ex.R-2, which would be applicable in this case. Section II lays down that property excluding cash and currency notes, whilst in the custody of the insured, his partners, directors, employees, duly constituted attorneys has been insured up to 35 lac and premium has been paid as Rs.10,500/- therefor.  Ritesh Amba was an employee of the complainant company and this point has not been disputed before us. We find that the jewellery was not in the open hand of the employee, it was duly secured by him in the suitcase, it is not the case that the suit case could be broken easily and thereafter jewellery was  taken away from the employee of the complainant. The jewellery was properly secured in the suitcase and the suitcase itself has been taken away by the thief, which further proved that jewellery was in the custody of the employee, when the above theft took place. We are in agreement with the finding embodied in the order of the District Forum in this case that the complainant purchased the jewellery of Rs.18,60,237/-on that day, from Delhi. Even loss assessor deputed by the OP Sh.Vinod Sharma, vide his final survey report Ex.R-5, has found it to be genuine one. The loss assessor submitted the detailed report Ex.R-5, which was submitted with the documentary evidence Ex.R-6 is the purchase register. Ex.R-7 is copy of retain invoice dated 3.12.2009 regarding the purchase of the jewellery of Rs.18,60,237/- from V.L Jewellers by the complainant and  Ex.R-8 is copy of the FIR.

19.    Consequently, we find that it is not a fake case of the complainant and is rather genuine loss of the jewellery suffered by the complainant, which was insured with the OP by Ex.R-2. The complainant paid premium in condition No.II and insured property up to Rs.35 lac under this head. The claim of the complainant has been found genuine by the District Forum and it rightly concluded that complainant is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.18,60,237/- towards the insurance claim from the OP for the loss of the jewellery. The complainant-preferred appeal No.1557 of 2011 before us claiming that the District Forum has not awarded the interest on this amount. We find force in the submission raised by the complainant in the appeal. Consequently, we modify the order of the District Forum to the effect that the complainant shall be entitled to recover the amount of Rs.18,60,237/- from the OP along with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of loss of jewellery till its actual payment. The rest of the order of the District Forum is found to be faultless and merits affirmance in the appeal. We convert the amount of compensation Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation instead of Rs.5000/- and no amount for mental harassment can be awarded to complainant, which is not a natural living person and is only a juristic person, being a private limited company.

19.    As a result of our discussion, we dismiss the First Appeal No.1557 of 2011 titled as United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Super Jewellers whereas we accept the First Appeal No.1768 of 2011 filed by the complainant in appeal therein and order payment of interest @9% p.a from the date of loss of jewellery till actual payment over and above the claimed amount of Rs.18,60,237/-. Rest of the order of the District Forum is affirmed in this appeal and the surplus amount of Rs.5000/- shall be paid to complainant towards the interest amount to be paid by the OP to complainant. 

20.    In First Appeal No.1557 of 2011, the appellant had deposited an amount of Rs.25,000/- in this Commission at the time of filing the appeal. This amount with interest, if any, accrued thereon, be refunded by the registry to the complainant by way of crossed cheque/demand draft after 45 days from receipt of copy of this order.

21.    Arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.03.2015 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.

22.    The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

23.    Copy of this order be placed in FA No.1768 of 2011.

 

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                           (VINOD KUMAR GUPTA)                                                                            MEMBER

 

March 13   2015.                                                                 

(ravi)