Per – Hon’ble Mr. Narendra Kawde, Member
Heard Adv. Smt. Aarti Bhide on behalf of the Appellant/ original Complainant and Adv. Sanjit Shenoy on behalf of the Respondent/original Opponent.
[2] This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 4/2/2010 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (‘the Forum’ in short) in Consumer Complaint No.328 of 2008 Mrs. Maneesha Mahendra Bumb Vs. The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors.
[3] The Appellant/original Complainant had availed of a shop-keeper’s insurance policy from the Respondent/original Opponent (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insurance company’) to cover the gold ornaments sold in her shop. According to the Appellant/original Complainant theft occurred in the intervening night of 10/8/2007 and 11/8/2007 in her shop, which was broken by burglars. The Appellant/ original Complainant preferred a claim with the insurance company, which was repudiated on the ground that there is violation of terms & conditions of the insurance policy on the part of the Appellant/ original Complainant since there was no ‘SAFE’ as defined in the terms & conditions of the policy document. Being aggrieved by the repudiation of the insurance claim, the Appellant/original Complainant preferred a consumer complaint before the Forum, which came to be dismissed by the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved thereby, Appellant/original Complainant has preferred this appeal.
[4] The only question that needs adjudication before us in this appeal is as to whether there is a breach of terms & conditions of the policy document on the part of the Appellant/original Complainant or not, by not keeping the gold ornaments in a ‘SAFE’ as contemplated under the terms & conditions of the policy document.
[5] As per Condition No.12 of the terms & conditions of the policy document, the insurance company shall not be liable for loss or damage to property insured whilst in window display at night or whilst kept out of safes after business hours.
[6] As per survey report dated 6/10/2007 submitted by M/s. Avon Surveyors, it is noticed that stock was stolen from the drawer and not from the ‘safe’ and hence, there was breach of terms & conditions of the policy document on the part of the Appellant/original Complainant. The Appellant/original Complainant did not lead evidence in rebuttal to the survey report to establish the fact that stock was stolen/burgled from the ‘SAFE’ and not from the drawers or window display beyond the working hours of the shop. Photographs tried to be filed before the District Forum when the complaint was reserved for orders are not produced on the record alongwith the appeal memo for our perusal and consideration to establish that burglary took place from the ‘SAFE’ and not from the drawers or display window. In absence of such evidence, we hold that insurance company rightly repudiated the claim of the Appellant/original Complainant. The District Forum after carefully scrutinizing the evidence produced on the record rightly dismissed the complaint. We find no reason to take a different view than adopted by the District Forum. Thus, finding the appeal devoid of substance, we proceed to pass the following order:-
ORDER
The appeal stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Pronounced on 28th September, 2011.
