ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. BRAHMDEO PANJIYARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'Petitioner') has filed this revision petition being aggrieved by the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in Appeal No.384/2002 which was decided in favour of Brahmdeo Panjiyara, Respondent herein, who was the original complainant before the District Forum.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Respondent was proprietor of M/s B.P. Trading an authorized distributor of Indane Gas and had taken a Multi-Perils Insurance Policy for L.P.Gas (LPG) Dealers from the Petitioner/Insurance Company for an assured sum of Rs.7 lakhs for the cost of cylinders and its contents, Rs.1 lakh against Burglary and/or House Breaking etc. On 04.01.1997, one Binay Kumar Mishra an employee of the Respondent committed theft and took away 224 gas cylinders from the Respondent premises. Respondent lodged an FIR against the said employee and also informed the Petitioner/Insurance Company about this incident. Petitioner appointed a Surveyor on 16.01.1997 to enquire into the incident. The claim was initially treated as "closed" on the grounds that the Surveyor was not given the necessary documents by the Respondent and thereafter though the Respondent supplied the necessary documents and requested for reopening of his claim, no reply was received from the Petitioner/Insurance Company. Aggrieved by this, Respondent filed a complaint before the District Forum on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that Petitioner be directed to pay the Respondent Rs.4,03,200/- being the loss caused to him because of theft of the cylinders @ Rs.1,800/- per cylinder along with litigation costs and other reliefs.

(3.) The above contentions were denied by the Petitioner who stated that in the first instance the file had been closed because certain papers asked for from the Respondent were not supplied to its Surveyor and even after the papers were supplied the claim could not be indemnified as per Exception Clause in the insurance policy when an employee of the Insured or member or partner of the Insured or a member of the Insured's family is concerned as principal or accessory in commissioning of the crime. Since admittedly, theft was committed by an employee of the Respondent, the claim was rightly repudiated.