<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 29.11.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 24th DECEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.2597/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.H.V.Gowthama,S/o H.V.Chalam,Aged about 61 years,Residing at No.25/37,41st Cross, East End ‘C’ Main Road,Jayanagar 9th Block,Bangalore – 560 069.Advocate – Sri.Narayana Rao B.VV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Regional Manager,The New India Assurance Company Ltd.,Regional Office,Unity Buildings,Mission Road,Bangalore – 560 027.2. The Divisional Manager,Divisional Office-VII, 5th Floor, D.J.C Building,(Vokkaligara Bhavana)Hudson Circle,Bangalore – 560 027.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to settle the insurance claim and pay the value of the jewellary lost in the Burglary and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant took a house holder policy with the OP by paying the necessary premium which was in force from 29.06.2007 to 28.06.2008. The said house holder policy covered all the risk of jewellary and other valuables. On 22.12.2007 after 6.30 P.M there was a theft in the building wherein complainants daughter kept the said jewellaries. As 23rd, 24th and 25th were the holidays complainant came to know of the said theft through his son-in-law only on 26.12.2007. The culprits broke open the main door gained entry and committed theft of the jewellaries. Immediately a complaint was lodged to the Tilak Nagar Police. Police were unable to detect the crime and apprehend the culprits, ultimately submitted ‘C’ final report. Then complainant made a claim to the OP by producing all the relevant documents. The surveyor and loss assessor of the OP visited the spot but thereafter also OP failed to settle the claim. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to settle the claim went in futile. Under such circumstances complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. Though OP was duly served with the notice remained absent without any sufficient reason or cause. The absence of the OP does not appear to be as bona fide and reasonable. Hence OP is placed Ex-parte.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. It is the case of the complainant that he took a house holder policy from OP by paying the necessary premium. OP accepted the proposal and issued the policy, which was in force from 29.06.2007 to 28.06.2008. The said house holder policy covered the risk of the jewellary and the other valuable items. We have gone through the copy of the said policy. The risk for jewellary and valuables sum assured is Rs.3,85,000/- and a premium of Rs.3,850/- is collected.<br /> <br /> 5. According to the complainant the said jewellary were lying with his daughter who is residing in Jayanagar 9th Block, Bangalore. Complainant running the office in the said block, on the evening of 22.12.2007 he closed the office. 23rd, 24th and 25th of December 2007 were the holidays, his daughter and son-in-law were out of station. During that juncture the house breaking by night and burglary has taken place.<br /> <br /> 6. After his son-in-law returned to Bangalore the said house breaking by night was noticed, culprits gained entry in the said house by breaking open the doors and committed theft of gold and silver items. Immediately complaint was lodged to Tilak Nagar Police, police were unable to detect the crime and apprehend culprit and recover the property. Ultimately they submitted ‘C’ final report. Thereafter complainant made a claim to OP, unfortunately OP repudiated the claim contending that the policy disclosed that the complainant is a resident of Kanakapura Road, Bangalore but whereas the alleged theft has occurred in Jayanagar, Bangalore that too in a different building. According to the complainant the repudiation is unjust and improper.<br /> <br /> 7. We find substance in the contention of the complainant. OP covered all the risk of jewellary and valuables belonging to the complainant. The fact that the said jewellaries were stolen is not at dispute because an immediate complaint was lodged to the OP. If there is a insurance with regard to certain house then OP can raise such objections that their liability lies with the house situated at Kanakapura Road not with regard to the house situated at Jayanagar, Bangalore. The house holder policy covering the risk of the jewellary and valuables binds OP to settle the claim irrespective of the fact whether the said jewellary is kept at one address or the other it matters little. Section.III all risks makes it abundantly clear the company will indemnify the insured or any member of the family in respect of loss of or damage of jewellary and valuables caused by accidents or misfortune whilst anywhere in India. Hence for this simple reason the repudiation appears to be unjust and improper.<br /> <br /> 8. Complainant did address the letter to OP on 05.09.2008 and also caused the legal notice, there was no response. For no fault of the complainant he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. The non appearance of the OP even after due service of the notice leads us to draw an inference that OP admits the allegations made by the complainant. When that is so, complainant deserves some relief as claimed. As already observed by us the sum assured for all risks of jewellary and valuables is Rs.3,85,000/-. Having considered facts and circumstances of the case justice will be met by directing the OP to settle the claim for the sum assured. With these reasons we proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to settle the claim for Rs.3,85,000/- with regard to the loss of jewellaries and valuables suffered by the complainant and pay a litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. If the said jewellaries are traced and seized by police the rights of the OP are kept open to take recourse to law for possession of the said articles in their favour from the concerned police.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 24th day of December 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />