PARVEEN SHARMA vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

REVISION petition No. 2198 of 2010 has been filed against the judgment dated 4 March 2010 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (''the State Commission'') in appeal No. 220 of 2009.

P class="subparagraph">Briefly stated the case of the petitioner is that petitioner had taken a house hold policy from the respondent opposite party which also provided insurance cover for his gold ornaments. On 27.12.2007 the petitioner left his house at Tilak Nagar along with gold ornaments which were supposed to be taken to Karol Bagh jewellery shop for polishing. He carried those gold ornaments in a small bag which was kept in a large bag properly zipped. The complainant before going to the shop of the jeweller went to Bawana Market for looking at a shop/premises for opening a laboratory. The complainant reached Bawana Market at 12.00 noon and an hour later the complainant noticed a cut on one side of the bag. The complainant thus, opened large bag and found that small bag containing his gold ornaments was missing. The complainant immediately rang up Police Control Room at Telephone No. 100 and intimated about the theft. Thereafter, FIR was registered being FIR No. 652 of 2007 under section 379 IPC on the same day. Intimation regarding theft of the gold ornaments was given to the insurance company on 28.12.2007. The respondent company appointed an investigator. The complainant submitted all the relevant documents to the investigator as also the insurance company. Despite that his insurance claim was not settled. Being aggrieved of failure of the insurance company to settle the insurance claim, the petitioner raised a consumer dispute in District Forum Janpath, New Delhi.

THE respondent insurance company resisted the claim. In the written statement, it was pleaded that insurance claim was rightly repudiated because it was found to be false. According to the respondent insurance company, the petitioner had initially obtained insurance policy valid upto 17.01.2007. The said policy, however, was not got renewed. After a lapse of about more than 10 months, the petitioner obtained fresh householder insurance policy with insurance cover for his gold ornaments. During the subsistence of the said policy, insurance claim for theft of ornaments was filed. The said claim was investigated through M/s. Delta Detectives and as per the report of the investigator, the claim was found to be false. Thus, it was repudiated. It was further alleged that petitioner did not cooperate with the investigator and failed to provide necessary documents and clarifications. This resulted in delay in processing of claim and the petitioner without waiting for the conclusion of the investigator, filed consumer complaint.

THE District Consumer Forum on appreciation of pleadings and the evidence partly allowed the complaint and directed as under: "1. OP will pay Rs. 2,00,000/ - to the complainant.

On account of deficiency of service, mental agony and harassment OP will pay Rs. 50,000/ - to the complainant.

OP will pay Rs. 10,000/ - towards cost of litigation."

Being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum, both the complainant as well as the respondent insurance company preferred appeals. Due to inadvertence, the State Commission failed to take up the appeal together. The appeal preferred by the complainant for enhancement of compensation was dismissed vide order dated 04.03.2010. The revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed by this Commission.

APPEAL No. 220 of 2009 preferred by the insurance company was allowed by the State Commission vide impugned order and the complaint was dismissed on the premise that theory of theft of gold ornaments propounded by the complainant was not acceptable.

LEARNED counsel for the petitioner argued that the State Commission had not applied its judicial mind while deciding the matter and ignored the facts of the case. Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had sold the jewellery on 07.01.2006 for Rs. 4,48,518/ - and in lieu purchased new jewellery during the period January 2006 to December 2007. It is contended that the State Commission has failed to appreciate that one set (necklace) weighing 182 - 600 grams needed some repairs and other ornaments had lost their shine and required polishing. That is why the complainant carried the jewellery for getting it repaired and polished. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that as per the terms of the policy, jewellery was covered against all risk against loss or damage by accident or misfortune whilst anywhere in India and hence, the theft/loss of jewellery as described in the complaint should be compensated for by the respondent and in not doing so, they have committed deficiency of service. Learned counsel for the respondent however, has stated that the petitioner had still not been able to establish the source of income for the purchase of gold and under what circumstances the petitioner took the new jewellery for polishing and repairing in an ordinary cloth bag. Further, the petitioner have stated they are staying at Tilak Nagar and were to get the jewellery polished and repaired at Karol Bagh and yet the jewellery was taken to Bawana, where the petitioner discovered at the bus stop that the small cloth bag containing jewellery was missing. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the petitioner had failed to establish the source of income and means to purchase new jewellery worth Rs. 7,64,200/ -, and why the jewellery was taken for polishing to Karol Bagh via Bawana. He has failed to mention how he went to Bawana what was the mode of transit and what safety measures were taken by him for safeguarding the jewellery in transit, therefore the respondent were justified in repudiating the claim of the petitioner.

WE have considered the rival contentions. The State Commission accepted the appeal and dismissed the complaint because it found the version of the complainant unusual and unbelievable. Relevant observations of the State Commission are reproduced as under: "2. In the first place, we may notice the crumpled circumstances in which the jewellery is said to have been lost.

The case of the complainant is that he had to carry the jewellery for polishing from Tilak Nagar to Karol Bagh, but before going to Karol Bagh, he had to go to Bawana for seeing a premises for opening a laboratory. The jewellery was carried by him in a small bag which was placed in a big bag which was lost. While dealing with valuable items like jewellery, a person is supposed to exercise due care and caution and is not expected to carry it from place to place. The complainant did not exercise due care and caution in carrying the jewellery all the way to Bawana, on the other side of Delhi, and the proper course to him was to have gone directly with the jewellery to Karol Bagh whenever he wanted to take it for polishing. It has also not been specified by what conveyance he went to Bawana. He says that when he came to Bawana bus stand, he noticed that his bag had been slashed to open and the jewellery had been removed. It has not been cleared whether he was traveling or not at that time. The details and particulars of all these things have not been given. It is strange that the bag was got open by someone, while the bag was all the time in the custody of the complainant and still he remained unaware of it. All these facts and circumstances to raise serious doubt and suspicion about the veracity of complainant''s assertion of theft, and it must therefore all said that the complainant has not been able to establish the fact of theft beyond all reasonable doubt.

It must also be noticed that it is little unusual for the complainant to have taken the jewellery for polishing because, according to him, the jewellery was purchased on the following dates;

i) 07.01.2006

ii) 25.05.2006

iii) 02.12.2007

New gold jewellery does not need polishing so soon and this circumstance also adds to the dust of doubts, surrounding the incident.

We are, therefore, unable to accept the theory propounded by the complainant for theft and for consequent loss and compensation. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the award given by the District Consumer Forum is set aside."

WE do not find any fault with the reasoning given by the State commission. The stand of the complainant is that he was carrying the jewellery in his bag because he was supposed to take it to the shop of jeweller at Karol Bagh for polishing. It is admitted case of the complainant that the said jewellery was purchased between 07.01.2006 to 02.12.2007. the incident took place on 27.12.2007. It is unbelievable that the gold ornaments purchased on 02.12.2007 would require polishing within a span of 20 days. Even the other pieces of jewellery alleged to have been stolen were purchased in the year 2006. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that said new jewellery require any polishing. Thus, in our view the State Commission was right in doubting the version of the complainant particularly when in such a situation under natural course of circumstances, a reasonable man instead of carrying jewellery to the opposite direction would have first gone to jewellery shop at Karol Bagh for dropping a jewellery for polishing instead of taking the risk of loss of jewellery during transit to Bawana which is in opposite direction. In view of the discussion above, we find no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the impugned order which may call for interference in exercise of powers under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.