SWARN KANTA JAIN Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Forum-II dismissed the complaint of Mrs. Swarn Kanta Jain, with costs of Rs.550/-, in whose house, a theft took place and she lost cash of Rs.13,650/-, one pair of tops valued at Rs.15,000/-, one ring of Rs.10,000/- and six bangles of Rs.42,500/-. The house was insured for the period from 21.12.1990 to 20.12.1991 covering all risks. Aggrieved against the order of District Forum-II, the present appeal has been attempted.

(2.) Briefly the complainant Mrs. Swarn Kanta Jain took out an insurance policy bearing No.400203/3600283/90 dated 27.12.1990 with the respondent Insurance Company, for the period from 21.12.1990 to 20.12.1991 for her house covering building, jewellery and valuables for the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for jewellery and valuables. Theft took place in her house where she allegedly lost cash Rs.13,650/-, one pair of tops valued at Rs.15,000/-, one ring of Rs.10,000/- and six bangles of Rs.42,500/-. She lodged a report with Police Station and informed the respondent-Company. However, the claim of the complainant was not settled inspite of repeated reminders/requests. In March-April, 1993, the complainant was to submit the final investigation report of the Police, but she failed to do so. However, on 19.5.1993, the National Insurance Company repudiated the claim. The complainant represented and the matter was reviewed and the final investigation report was submitted. Even though on 4.1.1994, the National Insurance Company informed the complainant that her claim stood repudiated, the Company got the matter investigated through the Eagle Eye Detective Service Investigators and Consultants and reported that the theft had been concocted by the complainant. It further stated that it is in violation of condition No.3 of the Policy which says that the insured shall take all reasonable steps to safe-guard the property, against any loss or damage, Krishan Bahadur was recently employed by the complainant and she did not get his antecedents verified from the local police. Under normal circumstances, no person would leave the house where the costly items of the household are kept in the sole charge of such a recently employed person. It has been confirmed in the FIR also that Krishan Bahadur worked in the house scarcely for about 25 days prior to occurrence of the theft.

(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for both the parties, the Commission has come to the conclusion that the repudiation of the claim did not amount to deficiency. It was also not biased on an earlier judgment where another complaint of theft at the premises was dismissed by this Commission. Under the circumstances and after verifying the FIR and the investigation report and other documents, this Commission does not feel that there is interference required in the decision of the District Forum-II, Chandigarh. Hence the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.