Gurmeet Dhillon vs Branch Manager New India Assurance Co Ltd

THE complainant Mrs. Gurmeet Dhillon of Chandigarh possessed a house holders policy from 3.3.1994 to 2.3.1995 for which she paid Rs. 1,506/ - as premium in respect of the residential house No. 2182, Sector 35C, Chandigarh. The house of the complainant was burgled between 14.9.1994 to 19.9.1994 when she and her family members were out of station and the culprits took away cash, jewellery and other valuable items worth Rs. 1,10,000/ - out of which items worth Rs. 71,500/ - were covered under the policy. The New India Assurance Company Ltd., respondent No. 1, however, assessed the loss only at a sum of Rs. 46,844/ - and paid it as well. However, the complainant was not satisfied and she instituted a complaint seeking the sum of Rs. 71,500/ -, which was admissible to her under the policy. The District Forum -II held that the loss assessed by the Surveyor in the sum of Rs. 49,590.60 p. was sufficient and in order to make up that amount it only ordered a payment of Rs. 2,746.60 p. with upto date interest @ 12% and also awarded consolidated costs Rs. 1,500/ -. The complainant has preferred this appeal and claimed balance of Rs. 21,990/ -.

BRIEFLY , the complainant took out a house holders policy from 1994 to 2.1995 on a payment of Rs. 1,506/ - as premium in respect of her house No. 2182, Sector 35 -C, Chandigarh. The complainant and other family members were away between 14.9.1994 to 19.9.1994 when the said house was burgled and the culprits took away cash, jewellery and other valuable items worth Rs. 1,10,000/ - out of which items covered under the policy were valued at Rs. 71,500/ -. The report was lodged with the police and the claim was forwarded to respondent No. 1 through their Regional Office, who appointed a Surveyor and the Investigator. However, the claim was not settled inspite of the repeated requests and visits made by the complainant. Even thereafter, the complainant kept on asking the opposite party to settle the claim as she had completed all the requisite formalities. The complainant was compelled to sign blank documents and it was on 25.7.1995 that the complainant was only paid Rs. 46,844/ -. In her complaint she had averred that the reduction of the amount constitutes deficiency on the part of the respondent. She has prayed that the Insurance Company be directed to make payment of Rs. 24,656/ - and interest towards compensation for harassment and costs. In the reply respondent No. 1 averred that Mr. Rakesh K. Khanna was appointed as a Surveyor who submitted a report on 28.11.1994 assessing the total loss at Rs. 49,590.60 p. The matter was later on investigated by Sh. S.S. Bajwa, SSP, retired and he submitted the report on 1995. The matter was processed at various levels and the complainant supplied the requisite documents on 31.5.1995 and thereafter the case was finalised on 24.7.1995. The deduction of Rs. 2,246/ - by the Surveyor on account of alleged reduction in the weight of ornaments because of their user, was unjustified.

IT shall be useful to refer to important parts of the insurance policy which are reproduced as under : ''Section III - All Risks (Jewellery and Valuables). ...... It is expressly declared and agreed that the condition of average in so far as this section is concerned is deemed deleted...'' ''1. Insurance Particulars.... (F) ii. Theft Rs. 1,65,000/ - iii. All Risk (Jewellery and Valuables) Rs. 70,000/ -'' Besides this the loss of items mentioned in the Claim also contains specific mention of items such as one pair of diamond tops, one diamond ring, and jewellery worth Rs. 65,000/ - etc. etc. The weight of various ornaments of gold have also been specifically mentioned and it was a case where the quantum of theft was valued at much more but the appellant shall be entitled only to the extent of Rs. 70,000/ - which was the limit of jewellery and valuables in the policy. The appellant has taken us to all the clauses of the insurance policy and the contents of the report of the Assessor and also the rates published in the newspaper dated 20.9.1994. The several different extracts of the policy are reproduced as under : ''The Company will pay to the insured the value, at the time of happening of such loss, of the property so lost or...'' ''It is expressly declared and agreed that the condition of average in so far as this section is concerned is deemed deleted.'' The appellant has rightly pointed out that the Surveyor has arbitrarily and erroneously reduced the weight while assessing the value of the ornaments by ignoring the important part of the conditions referred to above. Thus deficiency on the part of the respondents is well -established and appeal is hereby accepted. In conclusion, it is held that the respondent Insurance Company shall pay the sum of Rs. 71,000/ - minus Rs. 49,590.60 P. which has already been remitted to the appellant. The interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of institution of complaint is also payable on the entire amount of compensation except the part which has already been remitted. With the aforesaid modification the appeal stands disposed of. Appeal disposed of.