GOEL JEWELLERS Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Goel Jewellers have filed this original petition/complaint alleging deficiency in service on part of National Insurance Co. Ltd. seeking a compensation of Rs. 46,64,957. This claim was subsequently reduced to Rs. 36,05,200, as per the details given in the amended complaint as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_358_NCDRC_2011_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The case set up by the complainant is that he has been obtaining the Jewellers Block Insurance Policy from the opposite party- Insurance Company ever since 1995 and had obtained the Policy No. 361301 covering the period from 9th of March, 1997 to 8th of March, 1998. The policy covered the risks of theft, robbery, dacoity, loss by any kind of incident/ accident at the place of the business or in transit to Kanpur, Allahabad, Lucknow, Bangalore and Hyderabad as also from these places to their shop and residence with regard to gold, diamond and silver jewellery. It so happened that on the expression of an intention by one M/s. Aggarwal Jewellers of Lucknow to commence business dealings with them, the complainant as per the practice in the trade deputed their employee Shri Ashok Kumar to carry some jewellery items for being shown/sold to M/s. Aggarwal Jewellers at Lucknow. On 27th of October, 1997 Shri Ashok Kumar first travelled by train to Kanpur by Prayagraj Express from Delhi and reached there at about 3.45 a.m. in the early hours of 28th of October, 1997. According to the complainant, Shri Ashok Kumar was to accompany Shri Anand Goel, brother of Shri Vimal Kumar, a partner of the complainant-firm, from Kanpur to Lucknow in his car. As planned, Shri Ashok Kumar, Shri Anand Goel along with the driver Shri Krishan Kumar proceeded from Kanpur to Lucknow and reached the house of Shri Pradeep Aggarwal of M/s. Aggarwal Jewellers at Aliganj, Lucknow early in the morning at 8.40 a.m. In order to find out as to whether Shri Pradeep Aggarwal of M/s. Aggarwal Jewellers was in his house, Shri Anand Goel went upstairs leaving Shri Ashok Kumar and driver Krishan Kumar behind when suddenly three persons came on a motorcycle and one of them snatched the bag containing jewellery from Shri Ashok Kumar by pointing out a pistol to frighten them. They shouted for Shri Anand Goel who returned from the house of Shri Pradeep Aggarwal and coming to know as to what had happened, asked the driver to chase the culprits in the direction of the motorcycle. They were, however, not able to trace the culprits and, therefore, returned to lodge a complaint at the Police Station Aliganj, Lucknow. FIR No. 523 was registered at the police station. The opposite party-Insurance Company was informed about the incident and a claim of Rs. 16,92,500 was also filed on the very day i.e. 28th of October, 1997. The opposite party-Insurance Company appointed S.N. Nanda and Company, Surveyor, to process the claim. The requisite information/document required by the Surveyor were duly furnished by the complainant. The opposite party- Insurance Company, however, appointed M.P.Bakshi Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., another Surveyor, who again sought some more information which was also provided along with number of additional documents. However, despite the opposite party-Insurance Company having confirmed and satisfied about the incident did not finalize the claim and continued to delay the matter even after repeated approach and number of letters written to them. Irrelevant queries such as whether the incident was publicized in the newspaper, etc. were raised to harass the complainant. The complainant further alleges that in order to carry on their business they had to obtain loans from the Bank resulting in incurring of huge interest liabilities and non-reimbursement of the claim has resulted in great hardships, business loss, mental tension, agony and harassment apart from financial loss. Alleging that the opposite party has failed to provide the service undertaken by them against the payment of premium, a claim of Rs. 36,05,200, as stated earlier, has been made.

(3.) Served with a notice on this complaint, the opposite party-Insurance Company has denied the allegations and have stated that the claim of the complainant has been rightly repudiated as the facts and circumstances leading to the incident revealed that the claim was not genuine. In their rejoinder to the reply filed by the opposite party-Insurance Company, the complainant, however, stuck to its contentions in the complaint and elaborately explained its stand by extensively referring to the reports submitted by the Surveyors appointed by the opposite party-Insurance Company.