RATAN TARA JEWELLERS Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RATAN Tara Jewellers (hereinafter referred to as the 'Appellant') has filed this Appeal against the order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bihar (hereinafter referred to as the 'State Commission') in C.C. No.4/2001. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. are Respondents herein.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the Appellant is a partnership firm dealing with jewellery and having a shop at Kadamkuan, Patna for which it had taken a Jewellers Block Policy from Branch Office of Respondent/Insurance Company for Rs.16 lakhs for the period from 30.06.1998 to 29.06.1999 covering jewellery and property in its shop. During the validity of the said policy, a dacoity took place in the Appellant's shop on 07.06.1999 during which gold and silver ornaments were stolen. Appellant immediately filed an FIR with the Kadamkuan Police Station and on the basis of which a case was registered under Section 395 of IPC. Appellant also informed the Branch Manager of the Respondent/Insurance Company about the said dacoity vide letter dated 08.06.1999 enclosing copy of the FIR. The Police managed to recover ornaments worth Rs.3,49,471.42p during the course of the investigation. Respondent/Insurance Company appointed a Surveyor to whom all the necessary documents were provided. The Surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.12,52,486/ - and submitted its report on 13.06.2000. Respondent/Insurance Company did not settle the claim of the Appellant, despite several letters requesting them to do so. Being aggrieved, Appellant sent a legal notice dated 19.12.2000 and in reply the Respondent/Insurance Company vide its letter dated 17.01.2001 asked for some more documents for scrutiny and verification. Appellant stated that it was ready to supply whatever documents are required and it may be contacted for this purpose in the business premises but the Respondent did not reply and no one came for scrutiny and verification. Appellant thereafter filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of deficiency in service and requested payment of the sum assured i.e. Rs.16 lakhs together with interest at the market rate for delay in settlement of the claim along with litigation costs.

(3.) ON notice, Respondent/Insurance Company filed a written statement confirming that on receipt of intimation, one A.K. Ojha, Surveyor was immediately appointed to conduct a preliminary survey and some delay occurred because the Appellant did not provide him with necessary documents as requested, for in time. When the papers were finally received, M/s Mehta and Padmasay Surveyors (P) Ltd. assessed the loss at Rs.12,52,486/ - vide its report dated 13.06.2000. Since the police had in the meantime recovered some of the booty, the final claim was assessed at Rs.9,03,014.58p. However, since sanctioning this amount was not within the financial authority of the Branch Office as well as the Regional Office of the Respondent/Insurance Company, the entire claim was sent for seeking directions to the Respondent's Head Office at Kolkata. The Kolkata Head Office examined the case and approved the payment of Rs.9,03,014.58p towards full and final settlement of the claim. However, some additional papers were required by the Divisional Office of the Respondent/Insurance Company for final scrutiny before making the payment which were not supplied by the Appellant despite requests to do so. Thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Appellants and the delay if any occurred due to the non -cooperation of the Appellant.