NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAMWATI MITTAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act"), by National Insurance Co. Ltd. (for short "the Insurance Company"), the sole Opposite Party in the Complaint, is directed against the order dated 06.12.2007, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi at New Delhi (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal No. 827 of 2003. By the impugned order, the State Commission has dismissed the Appeal.

(2.) The Appeal had been preferred by the Insurance Company against the order, dated 18.03.2003, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (South-II), New Delhi (for short "the District Forum") in Complaint Case No. 3999 of 2000. By the said order, while partly allowing the Complaint, preferred by the Respondent/Complainant, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Insurance Company in repudiating her claim, the District Forum had directed the Insurance Company to pay to the Complainant a sum of Rs. 3,71,508/-, along with interest @ 10% w.e.f. 01.09.1999 till payment.

(3.) The Complainant, the Proprietor of a concern, styled as "M/s J.M. Tyres", had obtained from the Insurance Company a Shopkeeper Insurance Policy in the assured sum of Rs. 20,00,000/-. The stock of tyres was insured to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The policy was valid between 15.03.1999 and 14.03.2000. At night a servant of the Complainant used to sleep in the shop. During the validity of the policy, on 10.05.1999, when son of the Complainant opened the shop in the morning, he found that its door was broken; tyres and tubes worth Rs. 4,50,000/- as also cash amounting to Rs. 7,500/- was missing; and certain items of fixtures/fittings were lying broken at the spot. On the date of the incident itself, the son of the Complainant lodged a report with the Police and intimated the Insurance Company about the incident. On 14.05.1999 the Complainant had also preferred a claim under the policy, upon which Mr. G.P.S. Bagga, Engineer (Lt. Col.), was appointed by the Insurance Company as its Surveyor. Upon investigation, the Police issued untraced report dated 01.08.1999. After recording statements of witnesses concerned, preparing inventory, and verifying the books of account, vide his survey report dated 01.12.1999, the Surveyor opined that though the stock stolen was worth Rs. 4,03,814/- but, in view of under insurance clause, actual amount payable to the Complainant was Rs. 3,71,508/-. However, vide its letter dated 23.02.2000, the Insurance Company repudiated the claim of the Complainant, on the ground that it was not payable as per Exclusion Clause (I) of Section II of the policy in question, which exonerates the Insurance Company from any liability under the policy if the burglary or theft is attributed to any employee or family member of the Insured. In the said background, the afore-noted Complaint came to be filed before the District Forum, praying for the reliefs mentioned therein.