Ramesh Kumar Podwal vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD

1.RAMESH Kumar Podwal r/o House No. 170, Sector 18/A, Chandigarh instituted this complaint claiming Rs. 1,98,000/ - the estimated price of ornaments and clothes which he and his wife were carrying but stolen while travelling in a private bus between Pathankot and Dina Nagar during day time on 21.12.89.

BRIEFLY it has been alleged that the complainant possessed an Insurance Policy against theft and arson which was for the period 14.2.89 to 15.2.90. It was issued in his favour after verification of the premises bearing No. 170, Sector 18/A, Chandigarh. The theft of clothes and ornaments which he and his -wife were carrying in a safari suit case took place between Pathankot and Dina Nagar at or near Village Jhab Khera. He also lodged a report at Police Station Dina Nagar as DD No. 18 of 22.12.89. The price of gold ornaments has been mentioned as Rs. 1,26,000/ - and the price of other articles is mentioned as Rs. 1,30,000/ -. The complainant also claimed interest @ 18% per annum and damages to the tune of Rs. 10,000/ - on account of mental suffering. The New India Assurance Company, the respondent filed a reply wherein it has been averred that the occurrence took place near Dina Nagar and the policy was issued by their Ludhiana Office, no cause of action arose at Chandigarh and this Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain it. Besides this another important plea is that the policy in question was ''House Holders'' and the goods were not at the premises insured at the time of the alleged occurrence. The complainant neither produced tickets nor could disclose the number of the bus or name of the transport company by which he and his wife were travelling. The respondent got the matter investigated by Shri S.S. Sachar, retired Asstt. Inspector General of Police and he found that the allegations were totally false and the claim was rightly repudiated.

THE complainant was in journey in Punjab between Pathankot and Dina Nagar. The insurance policy was executed at Ludhiana and mere fact that there is an office of New India Assurance Company at Chandigarh as well could not confer jurisdiction in such a case especially when the local Insurance Authorities have not even been impleaded as a respondent.

THE important and relevant part of the insurance policy contained in para No. 1 of the reply and is reproduced as under : ''HOUSE HOLDERS'' On House Holders goods belonging to the insured as per schedule attached whilst lying and/or kept and/or stored and/or arranged in the insureds premises, situated at above address and built of 1st class const. PREMIUM SCHEDULE : Fire 60.00 Jewellery 980.00 BHB 240.00 P.A. 6.00 TV 25.00 Baggage 30.00 MBD 100.00 T.A. 64.00

A perusal of the details given above and the policy itself shows that the risk covered was in respect of premises bearing No. 170, Sector 18/A, Chandigarh and not that the articles such as ornaments clothes etc. belonging to the complainant were insured even if he was in journey. The complainant could neither produce the tickets of the bus nor could be even tell the number of the vehicle in which he was travelling or even the name of the Transport Company to which it belonged. The complainant was required to furnish the following information by the respondent : 1. The place from where he took the private bus from Pathankot to Dina Nagar with the name of the bus Company and any indentifying particulars of the driver and conductor of the bus and any other passenger who could testify about the theft of the suit case from the bus. 2. The circumstances under which the suit case containing costly ornaments was left unattended in the bus. 3. Identifying particulars of the gold ornaments alongwith the purchase vouchers. 4. From where the ornaments were taken and were kept in safe custody while leaving Chandigarh for the proposed journey to Dina Nagar. 5. Any other confirmatory evidence that he carried the stolen ornaments in the suit case before leaving Chandigarh. 6. Whom did he contact at Police Station at Dina Nagar on 21.12.89 and the circumstances under which report was not lodged at the Police Station in detail on that day. This information was never supplied to Shri Sudershan Singh Sachar the Investigator who was deputed by the respondent as per report dated 26.3.90. (Annexure -4)

THE learned Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that it did not appear to be convincing that if the complainant alongwith his wife and one child was travelling even Managal Sutra was also kept in the suit case and not on the person of the wife. Considering the facts and circumstances mentioned above it cannot be said that the claim was repudiated arbitrarily. In this case the occurrence took place outside the residential premises insured. The complaint fails and is dismissed.

ANNOUNCED . The order be communicated to the parties free of charge.