VIJAY SHREE JEWELLERS Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An applicant is a jeweller who has been carrying on its business from the premises C-2, Shopping Arcade, Hotel Best Western Surya, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. As in past, it got its stock and other articles insured through the United India Insurance Co. , New Delhi. It insured its stocks for Rs.20 lakhs under the insurance cover for the period 22.3.1995 to 21.3.1996. On 29.12.1995 around 5 p. m. three ladies with a male entered the shop as customers and on the pretext of buying the ornaments, decamped with the jewellery of the stated value of Rs.9,40,855/-. FIR was lodged and the claim for the loss was also made to the Insurance Company. Under the report dated 4.6.1996, the police informed the applicant that the theft had remained untraced and in case some development takes place later on, the applicant would be duly informed. M/s. Mehta and Padamsey Surveyors Pvt. Ltd. who were appointed by the respondent to assess the loss in turn recommended appointment of a suitable private Detective Agency. Mohan Detective and Security Services Bureau, C-216, Madhuban, Preet Vihar, New Delhi was assigned the task of investigating the theft. The private Detective Agency submitted its report on 29.3.1998. The Surveyor thereafter submitted the report assessing the claim of the applicant at Rs.1,56,260/- on 16.2.1999. On the facts, the applicant has filed an application pleading the deficiency in service on the part of the respondent squarely covered within the meaning of Sec.36a of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (for brief the Act ). It is prayed that the applicant's application for compensation at Rs.16,78,500/- should be entertained and allowed along with interest @ 18% on the aforesaid amount.

(2.) In reply to the notice issued, the respondent denied having indulged in any unfair trade practices as alleged by the applicant. Delay in assessing the loss, if any, was stated to be mostly due to non-supply of information on the part of the applicant. It is contended that the cost of the articles stolen were arrived at Rs.6,03,135.12 and as per condition of an average applicable under Sections I and IV of the Policy and the Schedule, the loss was correctly arrived at Rs.1,56,260/-. This was stated to be for the reason that at the time of theft, jewellery in display window was found at Rs.11,57,926.48. As it was under insured to the extent of 74.092%, the loss was reduced proportionately.

(3.) After the pleadings were complete, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the respondent has been or is indulging in unfair trade practices as alleged in the compensation application (2) If so, whether the applicant has suffered any loss or damage due to the same and whether it is entitled for any compensation (3) Relief.