RAJ RANI vs United India Insurance Co Ltd

THE revision petitioner Mrs. Raj Rani, Proprietor of Sujan Jewellers, Ambala has challenged the decision of the Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No.1183 of 2010. The petitioner was the Complainant before District Forum, Ambala. Her consumer complaint related to an insurance claim under a Jewellers Block Insurance Policy, which was repudiated by the respondent United India Insurance Co Ltd. But, her consumer complaint was allowed by the District Forum. However, the appeal of the respondent /united India Insurance Co. was partly allowed by the State Commission by reducing the awarded amount from Rs.4,47,940/- to Rs.2,00,000/- . The Complainant has now filed this revision petition seeking restoration of the order of the District Forum.

THE revision petition has been filed with a delay of 71 days, which has been explained in an application filed by the petitioner, seeking its condonation. Considering the explanation, the delay has been condoned and the matter taken up for consideration on merits.

THE case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that her business of Gold Smithy and Jewellery was insured under a Jewellers Block Insurance Policy taken w.e.f. 8.11.2007 for a sum of Rs.7,00,000/-. This comprised the property in the display windows to the extent of Rs.2,00,000/- and property locked in the safe to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. The protection under the policy was against fire, explosion, lightning, burglary and theft. As per the consumer complaint:- "That on 9.10.2008 at about 10:30 a.m., the son of complainant Jitender opened the shop and there he and his servant were present. Then there, two ladies and one man came to the shop of complainant. They said that they have to purchase Ear Gold Topus. The son of complainant Jitender showed them many stock box to them. They told the son of complainant to show the topus by putting into box. They were also shown gold chains on their demand. The son of complainant was showing the gold jewelleries to them, at once one unknown person came there who told him that he is in hurry and he wanted to see Silver Chutkias. The servant Jiwan who was present there alongwith Jitender showed him chutkia and were talking to him and After obtaining the price of the chutis, he put the money in the cash box. Then just on that time, those two ladies and both the men left the shop. On this, the son of complainant found that 24 Gold Chains (weighing 500) Grams tied in one handle were missing which were kept there as the same were being shown to them by him. The son of complainant searched all corners of the shop and have made full satisfaction to this belief that those 24 Gold chains have been stolen by those persons who were seeing the chains and that fellow man must have joined them in conspiracy to cause theft of chains by fraudulent means."

ACCORDING to the Complainant, a FIR with the police was filed on 10.10.2008. It was registered but the police eventually filed an Untraced Report. The respondent insurance company repudiated the claim in their letter of 15.4.2009 on the following grounds:- "1. That the reported loss of twenty four numbers of gold chains on 09.10.2008 by way of cheating (Section 420 IPC) does not fall within the scope and purview of the insurance policy that only covers the theft loss committed by the use of force/house breaking that is missing in the present case. 2. That your above stated claim is also not maintainable/payable since the Company is not liable to pay any claim unless the policy in respect of any jewellery articles kept in any drawer that provides coverage for jewellary items kept only in the safe and display countre."

WE have examined the record submitted by the revision petitioner and heard his counsel Mr. Rohit Dheer. The revision petition itself is focused on re-opening questions of facts, without being able to give any substantive basis for challenging the findings. Thus, a mention is made of the following observation of the State Commission- "It is mentioned that even if some theft takes place during the business hours, the Company is under an obligation to compensate the insured to the extent the amount is mentioned in the policy. As per the surveyor''s report, he has assessed the loss to the extent of Rs.4,47,940/- as warded by the District Consumer Forum. But at the same time a fact cannot be denied that safe was not opened when the customer visited the shop of the complainant. The jewellery lying in the showcase was shown to the customers. It is not the case of the complainant that he had shown the jewellery lying the locked safe to the customers. Therefore, only jewellery lying in the showcase was within the reach of the customer."

It is contended that the reference above to the safe, vis-a-vis the jewelry in the showcase was not a part of averment before the fora below. We need to consider this in the light of the details of the incident as coming from the complaint petition itself. As cited earlier in this order, the details of the manner in which gold chains were shown to the visitors and to the alleged loss of 24 gold chains, clearly show that they were the part of the jewellery that was kept in the shop window/showcase for being shown to the customers. There is nothing to shows that these gold chains were taken by the visitors from the safe kept in the shop. We therefore, see no merit in this contention.

ANOTHER ground of revision is that the State Commission has, on the one hand, held that a theft had taken place in the shop of the Complainant during the business hours and, on the other hand, reduced the amount of compensation awarded by the District Forum. Clearly, this contention is based on the fact that the amount of Rs.4,47,940/- awarded by the District Forum was the quantum of loss as assessed by the Surveyor. We do not find any contradiction in the impugned order on this point. The Complainant had claimed that his total loss was of the order of Rs.6.9 lakhs, which was even higher than the amount assessed by the Surveyor. Neither the claim of the complainant nor the assessment of the Surveyor can be the sole basis for determination of the quantum of compensation. It will have to be within the limits set out in the policy itself. The State Commission has therefore specifically observed that- "Admittedly, the Insurance Policy for jewellery of show-case was to the extent of rupees two lacs and with respect to the jewellery of safe for rupees five lacs. As discussed above, the theft was committed from the show-case and not from the safe. Therefore, the complainant is entitled only to the insurable benefits to the extent of rupees two lacs and not Rs.4,47,940/- as awarded by the District Forum"

FOR the reasons above, we hold that this revision petition is devoid of any merits. Therefore, revision petition No.2162 of 2012 is dismissed and the impugned order passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in FA No.1183 of 2010 is confirmed. No order as to costs.