Sita Ram vs New India Insurance Company Ltd

-CHALLENGE in this revision petition is to the order of the State Commission which dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners. The petitioners were the complainants before the District Forum. They had got their household goods along with the jewellery insured with New India Insurance Company for the period from 12. 3. 2004 to 11. 3. 2005. Mrs. and Mr. Ratan Lal went to Delhi to attend some family function had carried with them their jewellery. They went to the house of their son-in-law Mr. Deepak Gupta and daughter Diksha Gupta at Pitampura, Delhi. After the dinner they went to stay for a night in a guest house at Vidya Vihar after leaving the jewellery with their daughter considering it to be safe to keep the jewellery at their house rather than in the guest house.

ON the intervening night of 14/15. 10. 2004 the servant of Mrs. and Mr. Deepak Gupta drugged them and decamped with jewellery pertaining to the appellants as well as Diksha Gupta which were kept in the locker of the almirah of Diksha Gupta. An FIR was lodged and the statements of Deepak and Diksha Gupta recorded on 17. 10. 2004 and 19. 10. 2004 respectively. On intimation about the loss of jewellery the New India Insurance Company appointed M/s. Lokendra Claims Care Corporation as Surveyor. The claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on 22. 3. 2006. Alleging deficiency in service a complaint was filed before the District Forum-I, Union Territory Chandigarh. The case was contested by the Insurance Company that there is no proof that Mr. and Mrs. Rattan Lal had taken jewellery from Chandigarh and if they had taken and had lost the same, the same would have been mentioned in the FIR registered at the instance of Shri Deepak Gupta. The claim was also repudiated because theft by a domestic servant was excluded from the policy. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on 22. 11. 2007.

Dissatisfied by this Order the complainant filed an Appeal before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory Chandigarh. The fact that Deepak Gupta and Diksha Gupta were drugged by their servant was not denied. Shri Ramesh Chand, SI had recorded the statement of Deepak Gupta on receipt of a report through Ct. Satbir. He reached at their house at Harsh Vihar, Delhi and found Deepak Gupta, Diksha Gupta and their minor daughter to be unconscious. With the help of their relatives, they were rushed to Maharaja Aggarsen Hospital. On 17. 10. 2004 when Deepak regained consciousness his statement was recorded. Though he has mentioned about the jewellery theft of his wife''s jewellery, there is no mention that his father-in-law and mother-in-law had visted their house on 14. 10. 2004 and they had handed over their jewellery which they had brought from Chandigarh for safe custody to Diksha Gupta. He had mentioned in his statement about the arrival of his parents and other relatives from Bhiwani who had left on the night of 14. 10. 2004. Even if it is presumed that Mr. and Mrs. Rattan Lal had brought jewellery and kept it at the house of their daughter Diksha Gupta and then they went to stay at the guest house on the intervening night of 14-15. 10. 2004, then they must have come to know about the theft on 15. 10. 2004 itself and must have rushed to the hospital and must have informed the police immediately and subsequently to their daughter and their son-in-law when they re-gained consciousness and the son-in-law would have made the statement accordingly before the police. This has not happened. The State Commission concurred with the findings given by the District Forum although for different reasons and held that there was no force in the appeal.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner. He inter alia submitted that theft by servant is covered by the Insurance policy. Subsequently, he also submitted that there is a record in the guest house register about the stay of Mr. and Mrs. Rattan Lal. We have persued the householders'' insurance policy. It clealry covers burglary, house breaking including larceny or theft. This does not exclude theft by a domestic servant. Hence on this count the claim could not have been repudiated. The clause relating to special exceptions reads as follows: "the Company shall not be liable in respect of: (a) loss or damage by burglary and/or house breaking or theft where any member of the insured''s family is concerned as principal or accessory. " the servant is not a member of this insured''s family.

ON the other hand, the First Information Report by Mr. Deepak Gupta recorded by the Sub-Inspector Ramesh Chand neither mentions the visit of his parents-in-law to his house on the crucial day or does it mention that they had left the jewellery at his house before going to the guest house. As the guest house itself is owned by him it was not difficult to make an entry about the stay of parents-in-law in that guest house. The statement of his wife Smt. Diksha Gupta which was recorded two days later mysteriously mentions about the loss of jewellery pertaining to her mother. This does not infuse confidence. Accordingly, we do not see any merit in this Revision Petition. Therefore, same is dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.