NEERAJ NAGPAL vs National Insurance Company Limited

THIS appeal has been directed by the complainant against order dated 8.6.2005 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Forum), vide which is his complaint was dismissed, being devoid of merits.

BRIEFLY stated the facts are that the appellant had taken a household goods policy bearing cover note/policy No. 1000216 dated 27.11.2001 effective from 27.11.2001 to 26.11.2002 from the respondent, copy of which is Annexure C-1. It was next averred that on the morning of 26.6.2002, the appellant had visited State Bank of Patiala, Sector-38-C, Chandigarh for operating his bank locker and to bring few gold/diamond jewellery including one gent''s gold ring bearing three diamonds of the value of Rs. 39,500 and one lady''s ring containing 22 diamonds of the value of Rs. 14,500 and a pair of ear rings. The aggregate value of all the three ornaments was Rs. 54,000. He had put these ornaments in a hand bag which also contained registration certificate of his scooter, keys, cheques and other documents. He had tucked the hand bag in hook attached to the scooter and then locked it. He went to see his friend Mr. J.S. Bagga, Advocate in Sector 44, Chandigarh regarding some work. When he reached there, he found his hand bag missing. He searched the hand bag but could not trace it. He lodged DDR with the Police Station, Sector 34, Chandigarh on 27.6.2002, copy of which is Annexure C-2.

It was further averred that he had written several letters to the respondent making good the loss occurred to him but ultimately his claim was repudiated vide letter dated 17.3.2003.

ALLEGING deficiency in service on the part of respondent, appellant filed complaint seeking payment of Rs. 54,000 along with interest 18% p.a. from the date of loss of insured goods. He also claimed Rs. 20,000 as compensation on account of mental tension and harassment besides Rs. 10,000 on account of legal expenses. Respondent contested the complaint and filed written reply stating that the version as given by the appellant, was not found to be genuine, so, it engaged the services of Surveyor and Loss Assessor as well as Investigator for settlement of the claim. M/s. Duggal Gupta and Associates were appointed as Surveyors and Loss Assessors and Sh. Harjit Singh, IPS was appointed as Investigator. On the basis of their reports, it had repudiated the claim of complainant vide letter dated 17.3.2003 as the same was not found to be genuine. Parties adduced their evidence by way of affidavits. After hearing Counsel for the parties, the District Forum vide order dated 8.6.2005 dismissed the complaint, being devoid of merits. Aggrieved by the said order, complainant has filed the present appeal.

WE have heard Counsel for the appellant Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Counsel for respondent Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj and carefully gone through the file. It is an admitted fact that the appellant had taken household goods policy bearing cover note/policy No. 1000216 dated 27.11.2001 effective from 27.11.2001 to 26.11.2002 from the respondent. The further case of appellant is that on the morning of 26.6.2002, he had visited his bank i.e., State Bank of Patiala, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh for operating his bank locker and brought out a few gold/diamond jewellery items including one gent''s gold ring bearing three diamonds worth Rs. 39,500, one lady''s ring containing 22 diamonds worth Rs. 14,500 and a pair of ear rings, the total value of these articles was Rs. 54,000. It is further case of appellant that after the operation of locker, he had put these ornaments in his hand bag which was tucked on the hook of his scooter properly and securely locked it. It was lost on the way and he discovered this fact when he reached the house of the advocate. Further, his case is that he lodged DDR with the Police Station, Sector 34, Chandigarh regarding loss of hand bag containing ornaments on 27.6.2002. The version as stated by the appellant regarding loss of the ornaments does not appeal to reason. It is difficult to believe that a person after taking two gold/diamond rings and ear rings would put them in a hand bag and truck it on hook of the scooter. A man of ordinary prudence would either put the small ornaments into his own pocket or keep it in the diggi of his scooter. Further, he would not visit his friend which was situated in Sector 44 at a great distance. After taking jewellery, he would go straight to his house to keep the jewellery at a safe place. Even he had lodged report with the Police Station, Sector-34, Chandigarh not on the same day but on the next day i.e., 27.6.2002 at 7.30 p.m. while hand bag was lost at 11.00 a.m. on 26.6.2002. The delay has not been explained. As per report of Surveyor, he was maintaining a car. It was the day of summer. It is not clear as to why he did not take his car and took LML scooter bearing Registration No. CH01V-2482. Otherwise also, if the bag is to fall from the hook situated in the centre of legs, then it will fall first on the foot mat and not on the road directly. Thus, the explanation for loss given by the appellant is not convincing and further he had not taken due care and caution in carrying jewellery from the bank to his house. The Investigator was appointed in this case and vide his report dated 10.8.2002 (Annexure R-2) he had also dismissed his claim.

IN Mrs. Swarn Kanta Jain v. National INsurance Company Limited , I (2000) CPJ 544, this Commission had held that where complainant had obtained household policy and theft took place, then repudiation of claim on the ground that proper care had not been taken is proper and there is no deficiency in service.

THUS, in view of the discussion above, we hold that there is no force in the appeal and the claim has been rightly dismissed by the District Forum being devoid of merits and as such appeal is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. Appeal dismissed.