AVIRAJ GEMS THROUGH ITS PARTNER, BALUBHAI MANJIBHAI GAJIPARA Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) According to the Complainant, it had taken a Special Contingency Insurance Policy No. 230102/46/06/39/00000174 valid form 27.09.2006 to 19.09.2007 for a sum insured i.e. Rs.2 Crores for stock, and Rs.5 Lakhs cash from the Opposite Party Insurance Company. The Complainant was a traditional jeweller dealing with polishing and sale of precious stones. The Complainant had taken all safety precautions and security measures at their business premises, apart from availing the insurance policy.On the night of 10.08.2007, burglary took place in the premises as the main access door was forcefully broken.The Burglars cut open the steel walls of the heavy safe weighing more than 1 ton, kept against a concrete wall. The thieves escaped with diamonds, precious stones and cash valued more than two crores kept in the safe. The only hope to recover the business from such a big loss was the insurance claim availed from the Opposite Party, since the lost articles could not be recovered by the Police or the Opposite Party. The Police report and the findings of the surveyors engaged by the Opposite Party confirmed the loss. Instead of settling the claim, the Opposite Party harassed the Complainant for two and a half years by demanding irrelevant particulars and raising frivolous objections. Ultimately, vide letter dated 23.01.2009, the Opposite Party repudiated the claim, on the ground that the theft was committed by 3 Nepali Boys, who were the employees of the Complainant. It was submitted that it is a well settled position in law, that the insurer must give valid reasons for rejecting any claim. The onus of proof of the reasons rests heavily upon the insurer. The Opposite Party did not produce any cogent or valid evidence to establish that the Nepali boys were employees of the Complainant. The observation of the Surveyor, on the basis of an alleged statement of job workers, that the 3 Nepali Boys were allowed to stay with them in the servants quarter of the building for sweeping and cleaning and giving tea and water to the said job workers, does not prove that the they were the employees of the Complainant. As observed by this Hon'ble Commission in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Uniply Industries,2013 3 CPJ 571 NC at page 519 para-5 that it is settled law that surveyors report cannot be treated as the last word and a gospel truth. The other two allegations in the repudiation letter being that the complainant did not inform the Opposite Party the periods of operation of CCTV, and the safe in the premises not being attached to the floor of the premises. Hence, the Complaint was filed.

(2.) Alleging deficiency on the part of Opposite Party, Complainant filed a Complaint before this Commission under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying relief as under:-

(3.) Allow the claim of Rs.2,06,10,856 for loss of diamonds with interest @18% from the date of loss, i.e. 11.08.2007, till the payment.