V R JEWELLER Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant has filed this complaint against O.P./Insurance Company alleging deficiency in service on its part.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the case of the complainant is that complainant is a firm carrying on business in jewellery, at 162, Hill Road, Bandra (West), Mumbai. The complainant had taken insurance policy for his jewellary shop against burglary from O.P. by paying requisite premium. The policy was in force for a period 30.1.1996 to 29.1.1997. It is pleaded by the complainant in the complaint that on 30.10.1996 there was robbery in shop of the complainant. The culprits broke open iron grilled window entered in the shop, broke open all the drawers, got the key of the safe from the drawer, opened the safe and took away jewellery worth Rs. 13 lakh. The complainant lodged claim under the policy with the Insurance Company and also reported the matter to the police. Police could not recover stolen ornaments from anybody. The Insurance Company appointed M/s. H. Kannan and Company as Surveyor who conducted the survey at the shop of the complainant and after receipt of Surveyor s report, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on two grounds mainly the key of the drawer was lying in the shop itself and by using keys Almira was opened and ornaments were removed. Secondly, there was breach of warranty on the part of the complainant in not keeping ornaments in the safe which was duly locked and which was burglar proof. Aggrieved by the repudiation, the complainant filed consumer complaint claiming the amount of Rs. 11,50,000 and further claimed interest of Rs. 10 lakh from 1.2.1997 till payment. The complainant filed his affidavit and certain documents in support of his claim.

(3.) THE O.P./Insurance Company filed written statement supported by affidavit. In the written statement, the O.P./Insurance Company denied all the averment and allegations made by the complainant. It however, admitted that policy was taken by complainant firm from it. It pleaded that on sound reasons it had repudiated the claim of the complainant by letter 1.12.1998. In that repudiation letter, they had mentioned that culprits had forced open Almira with the keys lying in the shop itself. So, by opening the Almira with original keys culprits had removed the gold from the boxes which was a breach of condition of policy. The Insurance Company further pleaded that the complainant should have kept ornaments in standard safe and not in the Almira made locally and the Almira should have been theft resistant or ornaments should have been kept in locked burglar proof safe at night. The Insurance Company pleaded that they had repudiated the claim on the basis of conditions and warranties of the policy and therefore they cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service. The O.P./Insurance Company further pleaded that loss sustained by the complainant firm was because of sheer negligence and callous attitude on the part of the complainant firm. The Insurance Company pleaded that dictionary meaning of the burglary or theft should not be used to construe the terms and conditions of the policy but these terms should be construed with reference to the definition of theft and burglary mentioned in the policy. It, therefore, pleaded that complaint should be dismissed with cost. We heard submissions of Mr. H.H. Trivedi, Adv. for the complainant and Mr. A.S. Vidyarthi, Adv. for the Opponent. Now, the following issues arise for our consideration. The issues and our findings thereon are as under: Issues: