MEHTA WATCH INDUSTRIES SHRI RAMNIKLAL BHAICHANDBHAI MEHTA, RESIDING AT RAVI RATNA PARK, SHERI NO. 1, BLOCK NO. E/260, UNIVERSITY ROAD RAJKOT Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. TO BE SERVED TO GENERAL MANAGER, DIVISION NO. 2, TORAL BUILDING, JAWAHAR ROAD RAJKOT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under Sec. 19 read with Sec. 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, challenging the impugned order dated 31.5.2007, passed by the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred as the ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No.91/2000, vide which, the said complaint filed by the present appellants was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) The complainant Mehta Watch Industry is a proprietary concern of Ramniklal Bhaichandbhai Mehta, situated at Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation (GIDC) Estate, Rajkot, and engaged in the manufacture of wrist watches. The complainant obtained an insurance policy from the respondent, United India Insurance Company for their factory and godown premises, valid for the period 16.4.1999 to 15.4.2000, against burglary and house-breaking for an insured sum of Rs.20 lakhs. It has been stated that during the intervening night of 14.10.1999 and 15.10.1999, there was theft at the factory premises and goods worth Rs.8.5 lakhs were stolen by making hole into a wall and taking keys of safe from the drawer and also by opening and damaging the safe. The facts came to notice when the factory was re-opened on 15.10.1999 at 10.30 a.m.. The matter was reported to the police and the insurance company was also informed. The insurance company appointed Shri Upender Shah as surveyor to assess the loss. The complainant supplied the required documents to the surveyor, but despite that, their claim was not paid by the insurance company. The consumer complaint was filed, seeking directions to the OP-insurance company to grant an amount of Rs.8.25 lakhs along with interest @ 18% per annum from 15.10.1999 onwards and also to pay Rs.50,000.00 as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.10,000.00.

(3.) In their reply, filed before the District Forum, the insurance company stated that the complainant had violated the terms and conditions of the policy and hence, the claim had been rightly repudiated by them and there was no deficiency in service on their part. In the proposal form, the complainant had stated in clause 6 that they had deployed chowkidar to guard their premises during night hours. However, the said chowkidar was not on duty on the date of incident and hence, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy on the part of the complainant. Moreover, as stated by the complainant, duplicate keys had been placed in the drawer in their store office and the said keys were used to open the safe etc. The keys had thus, not been obtained by assault, violence or any threat and hence, under exclusion clause 7, the insurance company was not liable to make payment of the claim.