Per Shri S.R. Khanzode – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member:
Heard both sides.
(1) This consumer complaint refers to the alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opponent Insurance Company for repudiation of the claim which was made consequent to the loss of diamonds as a result of robbery committed at the place of one Mr.Pravin Mohanlal on 04.08.2004. It is further submitted that those diamonds at the given point of time were given to Mr.Pravin Mohanlal on approval basis where they were stolen. The insurance claim made was repudiated by the Insurance Company vide its letter dated 16th January, 2008, stating the reasons inter alia mentioning that neither proper stock register nor a separate register for the stock in safe, nor register of stock/jangad maintained and there is no documentary evidence that the stock lying with M/s.Praveen Mohanlal belonged to the insured. As per the trade practice diamonds were given for approval through ‘Jangad’ and the diamonds were to be returned on the same day evening, if not sold. Maximum 1-2 days Jangad Stock of Diamonds can be kept pending. But in the present case, last jangad was of 07.07.2004 whereas the alleged loss took place on 04.08.2004 i.e. after about 28 days and it was observed that some of the Jangad slips were also found from the Jangad Pad. It was further pointed out that the insured cannot lodge claim under the policy on account of loss of diamonds who is not broker and it is also referred to the exclusion clause, viz. “any customer or broker or broker’s customer angadias or cutters or goldsmith in respect of the property hereby insured entrusted to them by the Insured, his or their servants or agents. IS NOT PAYABLE UNDER THE POLICY.”
(2) We heard both parties at length. The policy in question is Jewellers Block Insurance Policy, copy of which is placed on record. According to the Complainant, the case of robbery in question is covered under the policy. The fact that Mr.Pravin Mohanlal from whose custody the diamonds were stolen is not the broker of the insured and that the intimation of the loss thereof was given after few days of loss to the Insurance Company, is not in dispute. The fact of not keeping the jangad properly, is also not in dispute in view of the statement made by the Complainant/insured in its letter dated 8th November, 2004 (Exhibit-M to the complaint) wherein in its internal page-2 in paragraph C-2 it is mentioned that “It is not customary to maintain register for stock held in trust by brokers in our business.” In the instant case, Mr.Vipul Gunaji is mentioned as a Broker of the insured and admittedly, the given stock on the date of alleged theft/robbery was not in the custody of said broker.
(3) Considering all these aspects and the terms of the policy to which a reference is made earlier, we find the repudiation itself cannot be faulted with and as such, prima-facie, no case of any deficiency in service against the Insurance Company is made out.
(4) Besides that, in view of the Apex Court decision in the case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. V/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., reported in 2009 CTJ 951(SC)(C.P),, the cause of action arose on the date of event which admittedly occurred on 4th August, 2004. The consumer complaint is filed on 10.06.2009 and that too without any application for condonation of delay. According to Complainant, cause of action arose from the date of repudiation of their claim and as such, the complaint is within limitation. In the Limitation Act 1963, Article 44, mentions date of repudiation as one of the cause of action but such is not the case in Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In the circumstances, this consumer complaint cannot be entertained as barred by limitation.
(5) For the reasons stated above, we pass the following order:
O R D E R
(i) Consumer complaint is not admitted and stands rejected accordingly.
(ii) In the given circumstances, no order as to costs.
Pronounced on 12th July, 2011.
