VIPAN MEHRA Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant/appellant, who is doing business under the name and style of V.M. Jewellers in Amritsar, took an insurance policy from the opposite party in the sum of Rs. 8 lakhs for the period from 15.05.2001 to 14.05.2002. According to the learned counsel for the complainant only a cover note was issued by the Insurance Company and no regular policy was issued. The English translation of the cover note, to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-

(2.) The case of the complainant is that in the evening of 12.01.2002, he brought gold jewellery weighing 1905 grams from his business premises to his house, with intent to send the same to M/s. Neelam Jeweller, in Jalandhar in the morning of 14.01.2002 through his employee Mr. Ramesh Kumar. This is also the case of the complainant/appellant that the aforesaid jewellery was stolen from his house in the morning of 14.01.2002. The complainant/appellant lodged a claim with the Insurance Company and a surveyor was also appointed to assess the loss. The surveyor accepted the theft claimed by the complainant/appellant. However, despite the report of the surveyor, the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company vide its letter dated 24.10.2002, on the ground that the claim as reported by him was out of the purview of the policy. Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the complainant/appellant approached the concerned State Commission by way of a complaint. The complaint was opposed by the Insurance Company primarily on the ground that the alleged theft was not covered within the scope of the insurance policy issued by it. It was pointed out in the reply that the complainant/appellant had not taken any insurance cover for the theft from his house.

(3.) We have carefully examined the cover note, on which reliance is placed by the complainant/appellant. In our view, the theft of the jewellery from the house of the complainant/appellant is clearly beyond the scope of the said policy. The cover under the policy taken by the complainant would have begun only once the jewellery was taken out of his house for being sold/delivered to M/s. Neelam Jewellers at Jalandhar. Since admittedly the jewellery was never taken out for the aforesaid business tour before it came to be stolen in the morning of 14.01.2002, the alleged theft was not covered within the scope of the policy which the complainant/appellant had taken. Admittedly the complainant/appellant had not taken any insurance cover for the jewellery kept at his residence.