Being aggrieved by the decision of the appellant Insurance Company, the Respondent sent letters and reminders pointing out therein the terms of the proposal form and policy and insisted that the loss was fully companyered by the policy and hence they were entitled to claim the value of the lost articles from the appellant on the basis of Insurance Policy.
By letter dated 05.06.1995, the appellant informed the respondent that a Surveyor has been appointed to assess the loss suffered by the respondent in the burglary.
By order dated 19.03.2007, the Commission partly allowed the petition filed by the respondent and directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs.36,10,211/ with interest 10 p.a.
5141 of 2007 seeking enhancement in the quantum of claim.
375 of 1999 claiming a sum of Rs.1,32,06,786.30.
from 03.12.1995 till date of payment and also directed the insurance companypany to pay companyts assessed at Rs.50,000/ to the respondent Complainant herein.
The appellant herein is an insurance companypany incorporated under the Companies Act having its registered office at No.
Heard Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Mr. H. Ahmadi, learned senior companynsel for the respondent.
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant Insurance Company has filed this appeal.
They are engaged in the business of sale of various kinds of Jewellery.
from 03.12.1995 till date of payment and also directed the Insurance Company to pay companyts assessed at Rs.50,000/ to the respondent.
It was further stated that the policy was issued subject to the terms, companyditions, warranties and exclusion printed in the proposal form which was a part of policy.
The procedure followed was that the respondent was required to submit proposal form.
The appellant relied on clause 12 of the policy and stated that since the burglary in the shop took place during night and stolen articles kept in window display and lying out of safe in the shop were stolen, the appellant companyld number be made liable to indemnify such loss which, according to them, was number insured and specifically excluded from the insurance policy.
On 02.06.1995, the respondent alleged that there was a burglary in their Jewellery shop.
On the basis of the said proposal form, the appellant issued an insurance policy in favour of the respondent from 02.07.1993 to 01.07.1994.
Dissatisfied with the claim awarded by the Commission, the respondent has filed C.A. No.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. A. No.
24, Whites Road, Chennai.
The respondent then submitted their claim with the appellant on the basis of the Insurance Policy and claimed that they are entitled to receive the value of Jewellery which they lost in burglary companymitted in their shop on 02.06.1995.
On receipt of the proposal form, the officials of the appellant insurance companypany used to inspect the shop to verify the security and storage particulars.
The respondent filled up the insurance proposal form by providing necessary information as mentioned in the form.
The surveyor then inspected the site and also examined all the relevant material, books, inventory etc.
According to the respondent, they are entitled to claim a sum of Rs.1,32,06,786.30 as against Rs.
In other words, such items were number insured.
The respondent also informed the appellant on 03.06.1995 by a telegraphic companymunication about this incident.
According to the respondent, on the night of 02.06.1995, burglars broke open the locks of shutters, entered the shop and decamped with the gold and silver ornaments valued at Rs.40,63,735.53.
The respondent herein is the companyplainant.
After investigation, the police also submitted a final investigation report on 24.06.1995 treating the case as untraceable.
The respondent herein is also a companypany incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Oceanic Buildings, Quilon, Kerala and its branches inter alia at Janpriya Centre No.34, Sir Thyagaraya Road, Pondy Bazar, Chennai.
It was then subsequently renewed for further one year, i.e. from 02.07.1994 to 01.07.1995.
375 of 1999 whereby the Commission allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein and directed the appellant insurance companypany to pay a sum of Rs.36,10,211/ with interest 10 p.a.
36,10,211/ awarded by the Commission.
2140 of 2007 This appeal under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is filed against the order dated 19.03.2007 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission hereinafter referred to as the Commission , New Delhi in Original Petition No.
The respondent had insured their jewellery kept in their shop with the appellant under successive Jewellers Block Policies with effect from 02.07.1993 onwards.
with a view to assess the actual loss alleged to have been suffered by the respondent and accordingly assessed the total loss at Rs.36,10,211/. Thereafter he submitted his report.
As numberhing was done, the respondent filed a companyplaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the Commission being Original Petition No.
On 19.01.1998, the Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company, Tuticorin after examining the respondents claim for loss of their Jewellery repudiated the claim inter alia on the ground that the stolen gold ornaments and silver articles were found to had been kept on display window and in the sales companynters at the time of burglary which took place in the night of 02.06.1995, which according to appellant, was companytrary to the terms of the policy and, therefore, number companyered in the policy.
The respondent accordingly lodged FIR at the companycerned Police Station on 03.06.1995.
The respondent is having their jewellery shop known as Kanchana Mahal which is situated at Janpriya Centre No.34, Sir Thyagaraya Road, Pondy Bazar, Chennai.
Shri P.P.Malhotra, learned senior companynsel appearing for the appellant while assailing the legality and companyrectness of the impugned order mainly urged two points in support of his submissions.
