ASHOK PAREKH Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal has been filed under section 19, read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 06.05.2013, passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State Commission') in consumer complaint No. 142/2011, vide which, the said complaint was ordered to be dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the complainant Ashok Parekh had obtained a "Jewellers' Block" insurance policy from the opposite party (OP), the New India Assurance Company Limited in the name and style of his proprietorship Firm, Shree Vardhman Jewellers to protect his stock from the risk of theft, burglary, natural calamities etc. The said policy was valid for the period 03.07.2008 to 02.07.2009 and provided an insurance cover of Rs.50 lakh to the complainant. The proposal for obtaining the policy was submitted, stating that local made "standard" safe purchased second hand, will be installed for securing the jewellery and ornaments, together with cash in the notified business premises. On the same premises, another private company called M/s. Parivar Forex Private Limited is operating, in which the complainant and his wife Santosh Kumari Parekh are the Directors. It is further stated that the policy had been issued after due inspection of their premises and after verifying the information contained in the proposal form. As stated in the consumer complaint, the complainant found on 25.05.2009 at about 9:15 AM that his entire shop had been ransacked and the safe had been opened and valuable stock items were missing. The complainant learnt that from the rear side of the shop during night time, somebody had opened the safety door and shutter etc. and removed the stocks. The complainant lodged an FIR with the Police who visited the shop and made the spot panchnama and took photographs. An intimation about the incident was also given to the Insurance Company. The estimated loss was mentioned as Rs.72,68,125/-. The Insurance Company appointed a surveyor who visited the shop and obtained the necessary documents from the insured. The complainant, after verification of the record of accounts, found that the loss was to the extent of Rs.50,67,182/- and hence, the said amount was claimed from the insurance company. However, the insurance company repudiated the claim, stating that the insured goods were stored in a 'portable cupboard' at night, instead of second hand 'standard' safe installed in the complainant's premises, which was allegedly being used to store currency for the sister concern of the complainant, namely, M/s. Parivar Forex Pvt. Ltd. There was, therefore, a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The Insurance Company also stated in their repudiation letter that there were no signs of forced breakage of the cupboard.

(3.) Aggrieved by the repudiation of the claim, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.50,67,182/- alongwith interest @18% p.a. from 04.02.2010 till the filing of the complaint and further interest @18% p.a. on the said amount till realisation.