Complaint filed on: 25.08.2015
Complaint Disposed on:12.06.2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AT CHICKMAGALUR.
COMPLAINT NO.115/2015
DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JUNE 2017
:PRESENT:
HON’BLE SRI RAVISHANKAR, B.A.L, LL.B., - PRESIDENT
HON’BLE SMT B.U.GEETHA, M. COM., LL.B., -MEMBER
HON’BLE SMT H. MANJULA, B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER
COMPLAINANT:
Mrs.Anjali Jeevan,
W/o Sri.Jeevan Belliyappa P,
R/o Balanoor Estate,
Durgadabetta Post,
Chikmagalur District-577118.
(By Sri/Smt. T.C.Shivashankar, Advocate)
V/s
OPPONENT:
1. The Divisional Manager,
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Crescent Chambers, K.M. Road,
Chikmagalur.
2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
III Floor, Indian Mutual Building,
N.R.Square, Bangalore-560002.
(OP No.1 & 2 By Sri/Smt. T.R.Harish, Advocate)
By Hon’ble President Sri. Ravishankar,
:O R D E R:
The complainant filed this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 against OP No.1 & 2 alleging a deficiency in service in not settling the claim towards theft of the diamond necklace worth of Rs.8,32,320/-. Hence, prays for direction against Op No.1 & 2 to settle the claim towards the said amount along with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service.
2. The brief facts of the complaint is that:
The complainant on 31.08.2013 had purchased one diamond necklace from C.Krishniah Chetty & Sons, Bangalore by paying Rs.8,32,320/- vide bill no.1001955450, at the time of purchase of the said diamond necklace it was insured by said Sri. C.Krishniah Chetty & Sons vide policy no.500400/46/10/39/00000021-500400/46/13/39/0
0000124, which is valid from 17.04.2013 to 116.04.2015. Such being the case on 13.03.2014 when the complainant and her husband in order to return to their place in car bearing registration no. KA 03/8626 at about 1.50 P.M., while she kept the bag containing the said necklace in the car and same was burgled by some unknown persons. Thereafter the husband of the complainant lodged a police complaint to Cubbon Part Police Station, said complaint was registered as C.C.75/2014 and after investigation the police have filed ‘C’ report on 22.12.2014.
Thereafter the complainant approached the Op No.1 and 2 and requested to reimburse the loss suffered by her due to burglary of the said necklace. The Ops instead of reimbursing the value of the necklace have repudiated the claim through their letter dated 19.02.2015. Hence, Ops rendered a deficiency in service and prays for settlement of the claim along with compensation for deficiency in service as prayed above.
3. After service of notice Op No.1 & 2 appeared through their counsel and filed version and contended that they have issued a special contingency policy to M/s.Sri.C.Krishniah Chetty & Sons covering the jewels sold by them for value of which exceeds One Lakh Rupees against the risk of burglary, the said policy bearing no. 500400/46/10/39/00000021-500400/46/13/39/0000 0124 for the period from 17.04.2013 to 16.04.2015. The liability of these Ops if any is governed by terms, conditions, exceptions and limitations of the insurance policy and it was a sales promo policy.
They have received a claim form from complainant on 14.03.2014 stating that the complainant had parked her car bearing registration no. KA 03/8626 at St. Marks Road, in front of Bishop Cottons Boys School, Bangalore on 13.03.2014 and she went to Devatha Plaza Complex for shopping, at the time of shopping the driver Sri.Lakshman was in the car, while going to the shopping she kept the diamond necklace and other articles in a bag and the said bag was kept in the said car. Some strangers by diverting the attention of the driver have stolen the diamond necklace and other articles from the car. Thereafter she lodged the complaint before Cubbon Park Police Station at Bangalore for tracing the theft of the bag and said complaint has been registered FIR No.48/2014 dated 13/03/2014. The jurisdictional police have registered the case U/s 420, 379 of Indian Penal Code and they have filed a charge-sheet bearing no.75/2014 dated 22.12.2014 stating that they could not traced out the accused.
The jurisdictional police have not registered a case for the offence of burglary under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code. But they have filed FIR and Charge-sheet U/s 420, 379 of Indian Penal Code only. Hence, these Ops are not liable to pay any compensation as there was no burglary took place in the said incident.
After receipt of the claim from complainant these Ops have appointed one K.Saranga Pani, independent insurance claim investigator to investigate the matter and after investigation the said investigator submitted a detailed report dated 25.01.2015 to these Ops and has given opinion that the policy covers only the risk of burglary. Since the burglary has not taken place the claim of the complainant is not payable. Basing on the report and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the claim was repudiated through letter dated 12.02.2015. Hence, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of these Ops, this Op No.1 & 2 are not liable to pay any compensation as claimed in the complaint. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Complainant filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to P.4 and Op No.1 & 2 also filed affidavit and marked documents as Ex.R.1 and R.2.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. In the proceedings, the following points do arise for our consideration and decision:
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of OPs.
- Whether complainant entitled for any relief & what Order?
7. Our findings on the above points are as follows:-
- Point No.1: Negative.
- Point No.2: As per Order below.
: R E A S O N S :
POINT NOs. 1 & 2:
8. On going through the pleadings, affidavits and documents produced by both complainant and Op No.1 & 2 we noticed that, admittedly on 13.03.2014 the diamond necklace of the complainant was stolen by unknown person by diverting the attention of the driver and subsequently the complainant alleged a complaint which was resulted in ‘C’ report from jurisdictional police. Subsequently, complainant claimed a compensation from Op No.1 & 2 as one Sri.C.Krishniah Chetty and Sons had obtained insurance policy covers risk of burglary on the gold and diamond jewelries. After receipt of the claim the Ops have repudiated for the reason that they have only covered burglary which was issued to the Sri.C.Krishniah Chetty and Son. The said policy is only special contingency policy which covers the risk of burglary to the jewels which exceeds worth of Rs.1,00,000/- and the said policy is a sale promo policy. They also gave a reason that since the diamond necklace of the complainant was stolen by unknown persons by cheating and diverting the attention of the driver of the complainant. Accordingly, the police have registered FIR U/s 420,379 of Indian Penal Code, which resulted in ‘C’ report. Hence, submits no deficiency in service in repudiating the claim of the complainant.
9. Complainant has produced copy of the receipt for having purchase of the said diamond necklace from Sri.C.Krishniah Chetty and Sons on 31.08.2013 marked as Ex.P.1 and also produced FIR filed by Cubbon Park Police Station marked as Ex.P.2, Charge-sheet marked as Ex.P.3 and a Repudiation letter marked as Ex.P.4. On going through the FIR and Charge-sheet we noticed that, the police have registered a crime U/s 420, 379 of Indian Penal Code against the unknown persons stating that it was stolen by cheating, but have not registered offence punishable U/s 445 of Indian Penal Code and we observed that the Op No.1 & 2 have issued a policy to Sri.C.Krishniah Chetty and Sons which is a special contingency policy, covering the risk of only burglary. The meaning of the burglary even though it was not explained in the Indian Penal Code is that, “If a person commits house breaking/house trespass to steel any articles of the house. Whereas, in this case such incident was not happened. The diamond necklace of the complainant was snatched by unknown person from the driver by diverting the attention of the driver. Hence, the policy issued by Op No.1 & 2 is not covered the theft punishable U/s 375 of Indian Penal Code.
10. Further we are of the opinion that, the complainant has not explained how she kept such a valuable jewels in her car while travel, it means that she has exposed the diamond necklace for such ill-legal activities. We are of the opinion that complainant herself is negligent in maintaining the valuable diamond necklace at her custody. We found there is no deficiency in service on the part of Op No.1 & 2 in repudiating the claim of the complainant as the policy only covers the burglary against the articles sold by Sri.C.Krishniah Chetty and Sons. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed and for the above said reasons, we answer the above point no.1 and 2 in the Negative and proceed to pass the following:-
: O R D E R :
- The complaint filed by the complainant is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.
- Send free copies of this order to both the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed typed by her, transcript corrected by me and then pronounced in Open Court on this the 12th day of June 2017).
(H.MANJULA) (B.U.GEETHA) (RAVISHANKAR)
Member Member Preside
ANNEXURES
Documents produced on behalf of the complainant/S:
Ex.P.1 - Cash paid receipt.
Ex.P.2 - Certified copy of FIR.
Ex.P.3 - Charge Sheet.
Ex.P.4 - Copy of the Repudiation Letter.
Documents produced on behalf of the OP/S:
Ex.R.1 - Investigation Report.
Ex.R.2 - Certified copy of Insurance policy.
Dated:12.06.2017 President
District Consumer Forum,
Chikmagalur.
RMA
