RANKA JEWELLERS Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In respect of the notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act dated 29-7-1993, the opposite party filed its written version and surveyors report before Commission. Inter alia, it is contended by the opposite party that there is no deficiency in its service. According to opposite party the remedy for the complainant lies in the Civil suit and therefore, the complainant be directed to present his case before the Civil Court. It is further contended that the complainant has not informed the opposite party about the theft within 24 hours as per the conditions in the policy. It is also contended that there was delay on the part of the complainant to report the incident to Insurance Company in violation of the conditions of the policy. It is also contended that the complainants failed to extend necessary co-operation and failed to furnish the necessary details of the incident to the surveyors as contended. Finally, according to the Insurance Company, they have rightly repudiated the insurance claim of the complainant. It is also submitted that the liability of the opposite party was limited to Rs. 1 lakh only under the sub-section (a) of section II of the relevant policy.

(2.) We have heard Shri Deepak More, Advocate for the complainant and Shri M.A. Yayeda, Advocate for the opposite party.

(3.) In this complaint grant of Block Insurance Policy dated 11-3-1991 to the complainant to indemnify the loss of gold and jewellery in the sum of Rs. 70 lakhs is not in dispute. Similarly the renewal of the said policy for further period from 11-3-1992 to 10-3-1993 is also not in dispute. The main grounds of opposition to the complainants claim are technical. The 1st contention raised by the opposite party is that there was utter negligence on the part of the complainant to protect the ornaments. There is no substance in this contention in as much as the insurance polices are obtained by the insured persons to cover the accidental loss of property in case of their negligence or inadvertantly due to any other reasons. Therefore, the negligence of on the part of the complainant is not relevant so as to repudiate the policy claim.