Date of filing:  30.04.2019

Date of Disposal: 24.04.2023

 BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,      BENGALURU – 560 027.

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.731/2019

PRESENT:

SRI.RAJU K.S,

SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER

Mr. Jeevan John Menezes,

S/o. Gilbart Minerals,

Aged About 28 years,

R/at: No.3, 2^nd Block, 5^th Main,

Ayyappa Nagara, K.R.Puram,

Presently Residing at:

No.49, ‘A’ 4^th Cross,

Marappa Layout,

C.V. Raman Nagar, Post Byrasandra,

(Rep by Sri. Nagaraj B.N, Advocate)

1) M/s. Future General India

Insurance Co. Limited,

Policy Servicing Office &

Corporate Registered Office,

Tower-3, 6^th Floor, Indiabulls

Finance Center, Senapati Bapat Marg,

Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013.

Maharashtra State.

(Rep. by Sri.Manoj Kumar.M.R, Advocate)

2) The Manager,

Future General India Insurance

Company Limited, No.31,

Mansion, 100 Feet Road, 2^nd Block,

Jayanagar, Bangalore-560011.

(Rep. by Sri.Manoj Kumar.M.R, Advocate)

//JUDGEMENT//

BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT

01.    The complainant has filed this complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking for a direction to the opposite party to pay the claim amount of Rs.3,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum and such other relief as this Commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.

02.    It is not in dispute that, opposite party No.1 is the serving office and opposite party No.2 is the branch office of opposite party No.1.  Further it is not in dispute that, the complainant had insured the ornaments purchased from Joyalukkas in Bangalore vide invoice dated: 17.06.2018 and the policy was in force from 10.06.2018 to 16.06.2019.  Further it is not in dispute that, on 05.07.2018 a burglary took place in the house of complainant and the ornaments worth of Rs.3,00,000/- were stolen and the complainant had lodged complaint on 07.07.2018 in Crime No.362/2018 and the police have filed ‘C’ report.  Further it is not in dispute that, opposite party had got inspected the house of the complainant wherein the burglary took place through its surveyor.  Further it is not in dispute that, opposite party had repudiated the claim on the ground that, the complainant was negligent with regard to the care in keeping safe of the ornaments. 

03.    It is the further case of the complainant that, without giving any valid reason opposite party did not sanction the claim amount to the complainant and the complainant got issued the legal notice dated: 25.03.2019 calling upon the opposite party to pay the amount.  In-spite of that, the opposite party did not pay the amount.  Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Hence the present complaint came to be filed.

04.    It is the further case of the opposite party that, the complainant is entitled for compensation only under the circumstances mentioned in the terms and conditions of the policy.  Further the complainant had failed to lodge a complaint immediately after the theft to the concerned jurisdictional police station and the claim form was submitted on 19.07.2018 to opposite party.  Further the inspecting agency of opposite party had submitted an investigation report dated: 03.09.2018 stating that, he has visited the complainant’s premises and observed that, the insured had kept the gold jewellery in his room and has left the room key in the window, which made the culprit to access and the gold jewellery was stolen due to overall negligence of the insured as the insured has placed the room keys easily accessible to any outsider which has resulted in the burglary.  Hence, sought to dismiss the complaint.

05.    To prove the case, the complainant (PW.1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and has got marked EX.P.1 to EX.P.4 documents.  The Deputy Manager of opposite party No.2 (RW.1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and has got marked EX.R.1 to EX.R.16 documents.  The investigation agency of opposite party has been examined as a witness (RW.2).

06.    The counsel for complainant has filed written arguments. 

07.    Heard the arguments.

08.    The points that would arise for consideration are as under:-

  (1) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?

  (2) Whether the complainant is entitle for the 

      relief sought ?

      (3) What order ?

09.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-

Point No.1:  In affirmative

Point No.2:  Partly in affirmative

Point No.3 :  As per the final order for the following:-

REASONS

10.    POINT NO.1:-  The complainant (PW.1) and the Deputy Manager of opposite party No.2 (RW.1) have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief. 

11.    EX.R.13 is the office copy of the letter of repudiation dated: 29.12.2018.  In which it is stated that, since the subject jewelleries were kept in a room whose key was left in the window, which made the culprit/s to access the room.  Since the subject loss was not attributed to a peril insured under the policy, thereby there is no tenable ground to claim.  It is the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that, the complainant took care and had kept the jewelleries in a room and theft took place when none were there in the house.  Further the insurance is covered with regard to the burglary and theft.  Hence there is no negligence on the part of the complainant. 

12.    On perusal of copy of the FIR vide EX.P.3 it appears that, the incident took place in between 05.07.2018 to 07.07.2018 in between 05.50 to 11.30 hours and the complaint was lodged on 07.07.2018 at 11.30 hours.  According to PW.1 on 05.07.2018 at 05.30 AM he had kept the house door key near window and went for his routine work and he returned back in the evening by 05.30 PM and he came to know that, the door was opened and saw the key was left on the door and he ran inside to see the jewelleries and found that, the same was stolen, the gold weighing 89 grams worth of Rs.3,00,000/- was stolen and he ran to the jurisdictional police station, K.R. Puram to lodge complaint and due to non-availability of inspector of police one cop asked him to come on the next day.  On 06.07.2018 as he was unable to visit the police station as he was held up at the companies meeting as it was fixed earlier and on 07.07.2018 the policy had registered the case. We feel that, there is no delay as such in lodging the complaint.

13.    It is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that, immediately after the theft it was not informed to the insurer.  EX.R.12 is the investigation report done by opposite party’s surveyor.  On perusal of the same it appears that, according to opposite party the burglar was noted on 15.07.2018.  EX.R.13 is the copy of the letter issued to the complainant by opposite party, in which it is stated that, upon intimation the opposite party had deputed an intelligence agency for investigation.  We feel since within 02 days the complaint with regard to the theft had been lodged before the police and the delay in intimating to the opposite party of 08 days is not a fatal one.  Further the claim form was submitted on 20.07.2018 itself, hence there is no delay in submitting the claim form.  Therefore there is no merit in the contention of the opposite party.

14.    We feel the reason shown in the repudiation letter by opposite party vide EX.R.13 that, the complainant was not care full in keeping the ornaments and he was negligent, cannot be accepted.  It is not the case of the opposite party that, the complainant had created a story and has filed a false complaint to have a wrongful gain.  It appears that, in reality theft took place.  One of the conditions in the policy issued vide EX.P.2 is that, the insured and their customers shall take all reasonable steps to safe-guard the property insured.  We feel since the complainant has kept the ornaments inside the room and had locked the door, he has taken reasonable steps to safe-guard the property.  Further the other contention in the policy that, within 14 days of the incident it has to be noticed to the opposite party company.  The theft took place on 05.07.2018 and the complainant had intimated to the call centre of opposite party on 15.07.2018.  Hence there is no delay as such in the intimation been delivered to the opposite party.  Hence in the above circumstances, we feel the opposite party is wrong in repudiating the claim.  Accordingly we answer this point in affirmative.

15.    POINT NO.2:-     The complainant claimed a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-.  The complainant has produced the invoice vide EX.P.1 dated: 17.06.2018 towards purchase of ornaments.  On perusal of the same, it appears that, the complainant has purchased the ornaments worth Rs.3,94,999.99 on the said date and the opposite party has given the policy with the sum insured amount of Rs.3,94,999.99 as appears in EX.P.2.  According to the complainant the jewels were stolen weighing 89 grams worth of Rs.3,00,000/-.  Hence we feel the complainant is entitle for the worth of jewels of Rs.3,00,000/-.  The interest claimed at the rate of 18% per annum is an exorbitant one.  We feel interest at the rate of 9% per annum would suffice in this case and that shall be from the date of repudiation i.e., on 29.12.2018.

16.    Further complainant claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony.  We feel in total the complainant is entitle for a sum of Rs.20,000/-.  Further the activity of the opposite party made the complainant to get issued the legal notice through advocate and to approach this Commission.  Therefore the complainant is entitle for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.  Accordingly we answer point No.2 partly in affirmative.

17.    POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

The complaint is allowed in part.

The opposite party No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of repudiation i.e., 29.12.2018 till realization and a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony and a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost.

The opposite parties shall comply the order within 30 days.  In case, the opposite parties fail to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount of Rs.30,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.

Applications pending, if any, stands disposed-off in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

  (Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by him, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 24^th Day of April, 2023)                                             

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•  

//ANNEXURE//

Witness examined for the complainant side:

Sri. Jeevan John Menezes the complainant (PW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

Documents marked for the complainant side:

1. Invoice dt.17.06.2018 – Ex.P.1
2. Certificate of insurance from 17.06.2018 to 16.06.2019 – EX.P.2
3. Copy of complaint dt.06.07.2018 with FIR – EX.P.3
4. Copy of legal notice dt.25.03.2019 – Ex.P.4
5. Postal receipts – EX.P.4(a) & EX.P.4(b)
6. Postal acknowledgment – EX.P.4(c)

Witness examined for the opposite parties side:        

Sri. Raghavendra Swamy, Deputy Manager of OP No.2 (RW.1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

Witness examined for the opposite parties side:        

Sri. R.Rajkiran, Investigator in the opposite party insurance company (RW.2) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.

Documents marked for the Opposite Parties side:

1. Copy of authorization letter dt.03.11.2020 – EX.R.1.

2. True copy of Master copy of policy – EX.R.2.

3. True copy of policy terms & conditions – EX.R.3.

4. All risk insurance claim form – EX.R.4.

5. Copy of Aadhar card – EX.R.5

6. Copy of employment ID – EX.R.6

7. Copy of Pan card – EX.R.7

8. Copy of voter ID of roommate – EX.R.8

9. Copy of Joyalukhas Invoice bill dt.17.06.2018 – EX.R.9

10. Photocopy of FIR with complaint dt.06.07.2018 – EX.R.10

11. Copy of letter dt.29.08.2018 – EX.R.11.

12. Investigation report dt.03.09.2018 – EX.R.12.

13. Office copy of repudiation letter dt: 29.12.2018 with postal receipt – EX.R.13.

14. Copy of mail – EX.R.14.

15. Copy of reply notice dt.30.04.2019 – EX.R.15.

16. Copy of policy – EX.R.16.

• REKHA SAYANNAVAR)    (RAJU K.S)         (SHIVARAMA. K)    
•