LAWS(NCD)-2003-11-80

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. NAVDURGA TRADERS

Decided On November 27, 2003
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
V/S
Navdurga Traders Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 16 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called as Act for short) is directed against the order dated 26.10.2002 in Case No. 257/2002 by the district Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Raipur (hereinafter called as Distt. Forum for short) partly accepting the claim of complainant and awarding compensation of Rs. 67,000/ - to the complainant/respondent.

(2.) RELEVANT undisputed facts stated in brief are: that the complainant/respondent had obtained a Burglary and House Breaking Policy for his business from the insurer/appellant. The said policy was in force for the period from 1.3.2001 to 28.2.2002. The appellants shop was burgled in the night intervening between 21.2.2002 and 22.2.2002, i.e., during the currency of the policy. The complainant/respondent herein lodged a police report about the incident as also intimated the appellant/insurer and prayed that amount under the insurance policy be paid to him. The appellant appointed Shri S.K. Kesharwani as Surveyor who in his report assessed the loss at Rs. 67,000/ -. However, the claim of the complainant/respondent was repudiated by the appellant/insurer stating that the claim was not covered by the terms of the policy.

(3.) LEARNED Distt. Forum held that the appellant was not justified in repudiating the claim and that the appellant has committed deficiency in service by repudiating the claim. Accordingly, the amount of Rs. 67,000/ - as assessed by the Surveyor, was awarded in favour of the complainant/respondent. Learned Counsel for the insurer/appellant submitted that though the loss or damages to the property was covered by the policy yet since the loss were caused by the servant of the insured/respondent; hence in view of the Exclusion Clause of the policy, the appellant/insurer was not liable to compensate such loss or damage. It was, therefore, submited that the repudiation on the part of the appellant/insurer was justified and the learned Distt. Forum erred in awarding compensation to the complainant/respondent.