JAGRUT NAGRIK Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed by Jagrut Nagrik and Shri Mahendra Manilal Panchal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioners') being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to the 'State Commission') which has passed an order in favour of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (herein referred to as the 'Respondent').

(2.) The brief facts of the case according to the Petitioner are that Petitioner Shri Panchal had obtained a Jeweller's Block Insurance Policy for safety of ornaments in his shop from the Respondent/Insurance Company for a sum of Rs. 9,50,000/-and had been regularly paying the premium on this policy. A theft took place in the shop on the night of 28.09.2004, the cupboards in the shop were opened with a master key and gold and silver ornaments worth Rs. 91,900/-were stolen. Petitioner lodged a complaint in this regard with the Police who carried out a detailed panchnama of the incident. Petitioner also intimated the Respondent/Insurance Company about the incident and the loss suffered by him and on 01.02.2004, Respondent/Insurance Company got the shop surveyed through J. P. Associates to assess the loss. Petitioner submitted the claim and all other papers thereafter to the Respondent/Insurance Company who on 10.05.2005 repudiated the claim on the grounds that the stolen articles were not properly secured and were lying in display on indoors. All efforts by the Petitioner to convince the Respondent/Insurance Company that he had kept the gold and silver ornaments in cover with standard locks and had checked these while closing after business hours, were in vain and, therefore, the Petitioner had no option but to file a complaint before the District Forum seeking a claim of Rs. 91,900/-along with interest @ 18% from the date of theft, cost of the complaint and any other relief which it may deem fit.

(3.) The District Forum after hearing both parties allowed the complaint on the grounds that the negligence of the complainant was not so gross as to disentitle him for any compensation. The relevant part of the order of the District Forum reads as under: