I C SHARMA Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions were disposed of vide order dated 29.09.2014. The petitioner/complainant preferred a Special Leave Petition against our order dated 29.09.2014. The said Special Leave Petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner/complainant to file a review petition before this Commission as he claimed that the policy of 2008-09 was not considered by this Commission. Pursuant to the aforesaid liberty, this review application has been filed by the petitioner/complainant. We have heard him as well as the learned counsel for the insurer.

(2.) The petitioner/complainant has now brought to our knowledge that the insurance policy of 2008-09 was not in continuation of the previous policy taken by him and there was a time lag of about 27 days between the last expired policy and the policy of 2008-09. This factual position which was not brought to our notice at the time the revision petition was disposed of, is not disputed by the learned counsel for the insurer. This is also the contention of the petitioner/complainant that the list which he had submitted in the year 2003 was not applicable to the policy for 2008-09 and no fresh list was sought from him by the insurer while issuing the house holders package policy from 19.01.2008 to 18.01.2009. The aforesaid position is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondent. We therefore, proceed on the basis of the list which the petitioner/complainant had submitted in the year 2003, was not applicable to the insurance policy from 19.01.2008 to 18.01.2009 and neither the petitioner/complainant submitted any list of insured articles nor the insurer asked for such a list at the time the policy for 2008-09 was issued. We have therefore, considered the claim of the petitioner/complainant in the light of the insurance policy for 2008-09 which is available on page no. 73 of the paperbook in RP No. 2361/2014.

(3.) A perusal of the policy would show that the petitioner/complainant got his clothing insured to the extent of Rs. 55,000/-. It can hardly be disputed that while taking the aforesaid policy, the petitioner/complainant was required to disclose the entire clothing in his house at the time the policy was taken and even if there was any increase in the value of the clothing, after the policy had commenced, he was duty bound to inform the insurer accordingly and pay the requisite premium on the amount by which the value of the clothing increased. A perusal of the claim would show according to the complainant, he had in his house clothing worth Rs. 87,000/- at the time a burglary took place in the said house. Since he had obtained insurance policy only for clothing worth Rs. 55,000/-, there was some under-insurance. We therefore, direct the insurance company to pay the value of the clothing, after applying the under-insurance to the aforesaid extent, from the declared value of Rs. 55,000/-. It will be for the insurer to work out the amount payable to the petitioner/complainant in respect of the clothing and make payment accordingly.